Search the Community

France has recently passed a bill that will force supermarkets to donate their food waste to charities, supposedly to cut down on food waste in general. I believe that this is just going to distort the market even more than it already is in France, there is probably a good reason why the supermarkets don't just sell the food waste to farms or donate it to charities. What effect do people think it will have on the economy in France? I was just looking into food waste by supermarkets and apparently in the UK the supermarkets have iniated their own programmes to cut down on food waste by donating it to charities, improving inventory methods and using it as alternative fuel sources. If they are doing it voluntarily my question is now why aren't the French companies doing it, are there regulations in France that make this unviable?

I have an older brother who lives in England who loves socialism. Unlike him, I do not have a Doctorate in Philosophy I have an associates degree from a trade school in IT. He's returned to southern california and the inevitable debates have arisen when we meet: 1. You cannot rely on the market to solve your problems because it is 50/50 chance of a solution, where as a law will make people uncomfortable and force them to change. His example: Whether or not I have created a Dispute Resolution Agency, it is still fifty fifty that the girl abused by her father will get any immunity from such services, nor if they belong to a collective such as Christian Conservatives, abuse will be condoned and resources pulled will be aggregated towards a DRA that supports their views, where as a law will outlaw that. His secondary premise is that people are comfortable with things and nothing will get done if they are comfortable that's why there needs to be laws. 2. The reason why Compton sucks is evidence that the market has failed. Because they choose shitty services when they can choose better ones but don't. They cannot rely on fixing the neighborhoods the way England has. England uses social welfare to make sure that people get better and more humane treatment, because socialism helps people become liberated and individuals, and without that there would be no recovery. Even though these practices are corrupt he thinks you cant destroy something just because it is corrupt, because everything is corrupt. 3. You need a central authority because if you don't have it, people will hurt one another and some people may become exploited and not be able to market their skills and become solid individuals. He states something about how a free market company called Phil Jones Gas sucks and takes 24 hours to get a gas repairman which means icy cold death for people, when British gas does it right away, and that people can choose to use British Gas (socialized gas) but use Phil Jones because it is easier and it's already there, which means with no regulation people will get shittier service. 4. Redistribution is good because of John Lock's philosophy about property, which says it would inefficient to have people share everything and it would also be inefficient for people to have too much property. He also uses Plato and Aristotle to similarly make the claim the redistribution is good and necessary for the government to do. 5. Even though the government is corrupt, it must stay in place because no one will have any order without it. Regulations are good and what keep things fair. After hearing these revolting 5 points, I must say, it's much too difficult to argue, I know it's wrong, I can't allow it to go unchecked, and I hear now that my brother want's to get into politics in England. What kind of counters does everyone see in some of these points, I apologize already if it is hastily typed, I can try to clarify on any of the points. Thanks guys.