On October 17th, the Los Angeles Times ran a story about how France's economic model is showing "signs of stress." That is a rather polite characterization of a country that has been stuck with an unemployment rate of 10 percent and a budget deficit of about 3 percent of its own GDP. Advocates of socialism often point to countries such as England and Sweden as examples in which socialism has succeeded, but those countries are in point of fact not socialist. They have mixed economies, not unlike that of the United States, which sport both capitalistic and socialistic features. The relative stability they enjoy is attributable to their capitalist component, while their non-growth is a direct result of their socialist component.

France, as we are seeing, is not merely idling—it is going in reverse—and this is because it has ventured far enough into socialism to the point where its shrinking capitalist component is ineffectual. Foreign investment has stopped. Capital accumulation has halted. And as the Times notes, "A massive national bureaucracy strains to preserve costly health and welfare programs, entrenched labor protections, and generous perks: A motorman for the state railway can earn about $90,000 for a 25-hour workweek with free healthcare and retire at 50." Unlimited access to healthcare services provided by others is a tremendously expensive gift to be given for free.

In defiance of the great law of their own economist Jean-Baptiste Say, the French are consuming more than they produce. As they are about to find out, no amount of "political gesticulation" can prevent the inevitable consequence of that policy: poverty, not wealth. How will their generous national health plan be funded then?

©2005-2010 The Lucidicus Project, all content unless otherwise noted.