Quote Originally Posted by alexsms View Post
Похоже, что Ваш уровень русского сильно вырос. Это уже хорошо.
Спасибо.

I think you have to be wary when using wikipedia sources and it's insufficient as an isolated, single source, imho. Plus, two sources cited by the article should raise red flags - meaning, they weren't good at all.

Quote Originally Posted by Lady Maria View Post
Eric, prices were rounded up by producers. It's as simple as it gets. The official conversion rate was €1 = F6.55957. But the practical reality was quite different, and there are even sketches (made by people my own age) where one chap goes to buy his baguette (французская булка) and is asked F4 for it; then comes 2000 and again he goes to buy the same baguette, only this time its cost has magically risen to €1. Naturally, he calls the baker a variety of unprintable names. But he still has to fork up.

Hanna, thank you for your kind words. I am sorry to hear you have so far been less than favourably impressed by French people. Please bear in mind that those Frenchmen you have not met yet may well have the most interesting things to say.
My opinions are shared by a number of Frenchmen (one only has to read the hilarious comments on yahoo articles; sadly, it's in French only) but the reason you may not be aware of it is that they tend 1) not to mix with foreigners much, if at all and 2) to know no other language than their own, and be content with it.
For the record, although I'm French born and bred, I do not have one drop of French blood in my veins.

The CAP was a joke. I'm no expert and have no notion about Eastern European countries, but how in hell can we have a common agricultural policy when the soil is different and varies wildly from country to country? Add to that the quotas they have imposed on us and you just see how much stupidity eurocrats can come up with.

As I would not appreciate being accused of wearing rosy-tinted specs when it comes to the USSR, I would just like to take this opportunity to mention that I am quite aware of the millions sent to the gulags and of such like unpleasantness. My own Greek ancestors (on my father's side) lived for some 15 or 20 years there (roughly between 1923 and 1940) and to avoid being carted away to Siberia by comrade Stalin, finally decided to pack off and move to the Greek mainland. So yes, times could be both undemocratic and unpleasant, I do know that. But that was in the worst days of communism.

As for Russia, I was diligently reading my Russian textbook and came upon the subject of "монетизачия льгот". I couldn't help crying out "but that's SO unfair!". I can only imagine the plight of poor Russian elderly pensioners, and I do feel they are being hard done by. I am not advocating a nanny state but I feel that if true democracy is to set in, then the people should at least be listened to. Same goes for the Chernobyl liquidators. You save the world from immediate nuclear destruction, you rise to the call of duty, sacrifice your lives, your health and your future and what do you get? Shameless reduction of your invalidity pensions, very little gratitude and a lot of medals. Is something rotten in the state of Russia... I remember one post claiming that we mixed up everything from welfare state to democracy, lumped everything together... well, it's all linked up. If the people truly had power, their voices would be heard. That's what vox populi is all about.
If I were to be cynical about my country, I'd say that at this level of unpopularity any king, any czar would have abdicated. But our president still will not resign! Even taken with a pinch of salt, that just goes to show... And what democracy is this when the prominence of two parties is such that in order to vote against the incumbent you have to vote for his opponent, while your distrust for him is only a shade less strong because he happens not to be currently in power?
I found it intriguing that people mostly discussed the definition of 'democracy' and compared it to its origins (i.e. Athenian democracy). I thought the mention of it by Antonio was good, though. Yes, it's described as the 'tyranny of the majority.' It's probably accurate. I would add, though, that it is domination by a select few over the dimwitted masses. Democracy doesn't work when there's so many foolish people. Also, one could argue that it works *perfectly* for the Elites or those who have power and control. Isn't it a matter of perspective? A totalitarian dictatorship might be simpler for those in power but a 'democracy' suggests legitimacy. Not to mention, these so-called democracies are being 'exported' to many countries.

But, many people don't get represented in a democracy and the rights/freedoms that are celebrated seem to be a sham. It is only allowed when the majority or State deem it acceptable but those aren't the principles which are its essence. Instead, it's a system to enable those with wealth, power and information. Those who are the best liars win elections and exercise political power. Billions of public (and sometimes private) money are spent in the attempts to secure political power. It's not about representing the people but serving which special interest groups invest in you.

Many people are uninformed in their own countries' politics and other countries' politics although you can obtain at least some insight with some time and effort. I noticed some replies here and I have the distinct impression they are not informed. I have emphasized previously that the political parties are ultimately the same, more or less. The mainstream parties are often so similar, that any differences are negligible. I posted videos showing this before the last American election. The feigned conflicts or divisions are merely for image and show. The media is owned, controlled or operated via powerful corporations either owned by Elites or those who own those shares. They have political pull so that it doesn't matter much which party is elected. This situation exists in most 'Western' countries.

In Sweden, it is interesting and can be contrasted with other countries such as the U.S. One powerful Jewish family owns half the media. The other half is owned by a collection of bankers. It is funny or ironic to see someone mention Goldman Sachs. They are part of the group that owns the other half. This company is called Schibsted. I'm not sure how it works in Russia exactly but we all know the State has a very vested interest in who owns or controls the mainstream media. They control how critical they are of the Kremlin. We know that the Putin regime is 'friendly' with the Oligarchs there. I would argue that democracy works in Russia if you take the p.o.v. that 'contemporary democracy' allows the enslavement of the people. If it allows theft of natural resources and privileges to a few. Then, sure, contemporary democracy works there as it 'works' in all the democratic countries. It is just a different picture but the same type of photographers.

It's mostly the left in power throughout most countries even when the banks have considerable influence in political and economic decisions. The terms some of the electorate and media use might deceive or mislead people but the policies these groups and parties use should reveal the realities.