Yellow Vests resurgence in France, Macron reeling

[136or142]

I don't doubt that there are a lot of hardworking French people, but collectively they seem to be a bunch of incredibly entitled whiners.

The French economy has been struggling for years, and might well now be vying with Italy to be the 'sick man of Europe.'

[136or142]

There's also the broader issue of trying to find moralistic/pseudo-anthropological explanations for people's political behavior, something that's fallen out of flavor in serious political science since the turn of the 20th century but that's apparently still popular among lazy pundits and people who like to ape lazy pundits.

I'm sure it's no lazier than the French people collectively.

[136or142]

There's also the broader issue of trying to find moralistic/pseudo-anthropological explanations for people's political behavior, something that's fallen out of flavor in serious political science since the turn of the 20th century but that's apparently still popular among lazy pundits and people who like to ape lazy pundits.

You can speak in riddles all you want, but it will only play for a select audience (mind you, I'm not actually following this story).

I thought what I meant was obvious from context. At least, the people it was targeted at seem to have gotten my point all right (see above).

It's clearly not just me though.

Top suggestions from Google for "French always"
1.on strike
2.late
3.protesting
4.surrender
5.complaining
6.lose wars

I try not to judge an entire group of people in a single collective way, but to dismiss the degree to which the French collectively protest as lazy pseudo anthropology is clearly itself lazy.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/articles/why-do-the-french-always-strike/

https://www.thelocal.fr/20180404/dont-mention-the-words-strike-culture-in-france

 
Denouncing the country's "gréviculture" or "strike culture", Gabriel Attal struck at the heart of France's political divide over the strikes which started on Tuesday and are set to take place on 36 days until June 28th.

So, even a French politician agrees France has a strike or grievance culture.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36387492

[136or142]

So your counterargument for why this isn't trite pablum by lazy pundits is to:
- Quote a bunch of articles by said lazy pundits.
- Bring up f**king google searches.

OK then, you've convinced me. This is top-notch political analysis.

One google search. Those were the results.  

Well, let's establish a baseline here.  Is everybody who you disagree with a 'lazy pundit'?

I thought TheLocal was a left wing British site, but it's French.  It seems to be centrist.

Oh well, this is the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/10/why-do-the-french-protest-so-much-google

Of course, these newspapers don't speak for all people and the writers don't even for all of their readership, but we have three British articles, one on the right (The Telegraph) one in the center (BBC) and one on the left (The Guardian) all being this same 'lazy pundit.'  This seems to suggest a whole lot of people engaging in the same lazy punditry.  

Not to mention a French paper making the same claim.  Lots of lazy people, and most of them aren't even French.  

[136or142]

...uh, yes, that's exactly how clichés work. Citing a bunch of pieces that all parrot the same talking points and add no substantive analytical content perfectly illustrates my point, so thank you very much for that.

And yeah, the vast majority of "opinion journalists" are worthless, lazy hacks whose whole job consists in peddling such clichés without an ounce of creativity or critical thinking. That's true for "left", "right" and "center" publications. I don't know what baffles you so much about this notion.

Okay, well how about this.  All you've said in this thread is that people who are commenting here have no idea what's actually going on in France (more or less.)  So, how would you describe the situation?

I appreciate that's broad, so you can start from the point of how are the French people entitled to their entitlements if you like.

[136or142]

...uh, yes, that's exactly how clichés work. Citing a bunch of pieces that all parrot the same talking points and add no substantive analytical content perfectly illustrates my point, so thank you very much for that.

And yeah, the vast majority of "opinion journalists" are worthless, lazy hacks whose whole job consists in peddling such clichés without an ounce of creativity or critical thinking. That's true for "left", "right" and "center" publications. I don't know what baffles you so much about this notion.

Okay, well how about this.  All you've said in this thread is that people who are commenting here have no idea what's actually going on in France (more or less.)  So, how would you describe the situation?

I appreciate that's broad, so you can start from the point of how are the French people entitled to their entitlements if you like.

Every group of people of any country is entitled to their entitlements. This is basic economic psychology: once you give something to someone, they start taking it for granted and taking it away feels a lot more painful than never giving it in the first place. Just look at the US where ever the most fanatical small-government conservatives still think they deserve their Medicare/Social Security/Food Stamps, just not other people.

So what you're taking issue is not "entitlement mentality" per se, rather it's the way in which people manifest it in the political sphere - ie, the fact that France has a strong tradition of disruptive collective action (violent protests, strikes, blocking roads etc.). Now, the reasons for this are complex and I'm not entirely qualified to analyze them, although if you really want an answer I'd say part of them have to do with political history (the long spell of political instability from 1789 to the 1880s making certain forms of collective action ingrained in people's habits), social history (the development of a labor movement strictly separate from and even antagonistic to political parties), political institutions (which, since 1958 at least, tends to insulate political decision-makers from milder expressions of public disapproval), and geography (the primacy of Paris in every aspect of French life making it an easy focal point - although the Yellow Vest movement has actually subverted this trend by being overwhelmingly provincial). Someone like Charles Tilly might have a lot more to say about this, and since this isn't my main area of expertise I'll stop there.

Whatever its causes, I'd argue that the French's ability to organize collectively in defense of their interests (regardless of whether these interests are legitimate or not) is a good thing, since it implies an engaged citizenry that is ready and willing to take part in the political protests - in other words, the very opposite of lazy. Countries like Italy or even America (although things might be changing for the better in the T***p presidency) where people take everything the politicians do lying down, are too atomized to organize, and just tend to thing it's not worth it, have a far more serious problem than France IMO. But maybe that's just me who thinks active citizen involvement in political choices is a good thing.

So, with the exception of you arguing that protesting is a good thing, what you wrote here is no different than what was argued in those four articles, or even what I argued.

"The French have a protest culture that has developed from 1789 on and they use protests to defend their entitlements."

As a neoclassicist on economics I believe there are balances that produce the best economic outcomes for most people:
1.A balance between government spending and private sector spending
2.A balance between security and 'creative destruction.'

In the United States, neoclassical liberals argue that the balance is too much in favor of the private sector and 'laissez faire.'

In France, the same neoclassical liberals like Emanuel Macron argue that the balance is too much in favor of security and the government.

If you have 'job guarantees,' for instance, that make it virtually impossible to lay off anybody, it also stands to reason that is going to provide a major disincentive towards hiring people in the first place.  This likely goes a fair way to explaining why France has a 10.4% unemployment rate.

So, yes, the United States also has significant problems.  However, a neoclassicist can easily argue without contradiction that the United States needs to move to the 'left' on economics to address its problems, while France needs to move to the 'right' on economics to address its problems.

[136or142]

No, we're clearly not arguing the same thing. You're conflating a sentiment (entitlement) with a form of its expression (protest) and I'm taking pains to disentangle them.

Now you're making some weird nonsequitur into macroeconomic generalities that has nothing to do with the point we were discussing, so I really don't know if you want this exchange to go anywhere.

1.I think, in this case, that is a distinction without a difference.
2.You argued that the French are right to protest to keep their entitlements. I'm arguing what Macron is facing and also pointing out a likely consequence of the entitlement: 10.4% unemployment.

So, active citizen involvement is a fine thing. But, those protesting need to understand the consequences of what they are protesting for.   An active citizenry is not inherently an informed citizenry.

[136or142]

Your complete misunderstanding of this

2.You argued that the French are right to protest to keep their entitlements. I'm arguing what Macron is facing and also pointing out a likely consequence of the entitlement: 10.4% unemployment.

proves this

You must be logged in to read this quote.

wrong.

I never said anything about whether people "are right" to protest or not. That's a misunderstanding one can only make if they conflate my explanation for why people have grievances (which I deliberately kept value-neutral) and my explanation for why they express it a certain way. I could forgive you for missing that distinction initially, but continuing to do so after it was explicitly pointed out to you implies a serious lack of comprehension skills or of good faith.

(Oh, and yes, they are in fact right to protest, and neoclassical economics is worthless trash. But I don't think this point is even worth arguing with someone as thickheaded as you.)

1.The point is that people are protesting to protect their entitlements.  Hence, it's a distinction without a difference.  I don't know anybody who protests in favor of things that they're against.

2.The evidence from Germany shows how an economy benefits when it is liberalized, but not to the point where it becomes laissez faire.

Of course you'd have to argue that neoclassical economics is 'worthless trash.'  It allows you to justify wanting to maintain a status quo that leaves millions of your fellow French unemployed.

Your attitude is no different than American Republicans: I'm alright Jack.

Interesting how you characterize me as 'thickheaded' yet I realized right away from your whiny protests against my characterization of the yellow vest protesters how you were obviously in support of them. 

You're clearly not as smart as you obviously like to think you are.

[136or142]

It's painfully obvious that the Yellow Vests' grievances are largely based on regional inequalities between the Parisians who control every aspect of French life and the comparatively immiserated inhabitants of the rest of the country, but both rational choice theorists and the woketariat see the idea of talking seriously about regional inequality as a threat so I'm not surprised it's not being discussed in this thread.

If that were true, agriculture subsidies in France wouldn't have gone on for as long as they have.

[136or142]

It's painfully obvious that the Yellow Vests' grievances are largely based on regional inequalities between the Parisians who control every aspect of French life and the comparatively immiserated inhabitants of the rest of the country, but both rational choice theorists and the woketariat see the idea of talking seriously about regional inequality as a threat so I'm not surprised it's not being discussed in this thread.

If that were true, agriculture subsidies in France wouldn't have gone on for as long as they have.

In order for the existence of agriculture subsidies to be a sufficient counterargument, you have to also be willing to say that there's no regional inequality in the United States.

1.The agriculture subsidies show the Parisians don't control 'every aspect of French life'

2.While regional inequalities exist in the United States, there is no dominant region in the U.S (despite the nonsense about the 'coastal elites') so, it's not necessarily the case that regional inequalities require a single dominant region.

[136or142]

It's painfully obvious that the Yellow Vests' grievances are largely based on regional inequalities between the Parisians who control every aspect of French life and the comparatively immiserated inhabitants of the rest of the country, but both rational choice theorists and the woketariat see the idea of talking seriously about regional inequality as a threat so I'm not surprised it's not being discussed in this thread.

If that were true, agriculture subsidies in France wouldn't have gone on for as long as they have.

In order for the existence of agriculture subsidies to be a sufficient counterargument, you have to also be willing to say that there's no regional inequality in the United States.

1.The agriculture subsidies show the Parisians don't control 'every aspect of French life'

2.While regional inequalities exist in the United States, there is no dominant region in the U.S (despite the nonsense about the 'coastal elites') so, it's not necessarily the case that regional inequalities require a single dominant region.

I admit to some hyperbole but it's an accepted fact that the organizational philosophy of the French state has been with varying intensity centralist since the Revolution and the levers of power in France are almost all, and for a long time have almost all been, in the hands of people mostly familiar with Paris and Parisian issues (even if they nominally represent other places in the National Assembly or whatever). Do you deny this?

No, but the issue to me, which you did not state, is whether Paris has caused this inequality or not through any dominance of the national discussion or whether the overall failed policies of trying to reduce insecurity: difficulty of laying off people, agricultural subsidies are primarily responsible.