Yellow Vests resurgence in France, Macron reeling

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

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.

I don't know enough about France to say for sure, although I can't help but suspect that neoliberal reforms would result in the same runaway wealth concentration in metropolitan areas and brain drain from the countryside and regional cities in France that they've resulted in in the United States, the United Kingdom, and elsewhere. What I was commenting on was the fact that, for a forum ostensibly devoted to discussing political geography, the geographical and demographic dimension of what's going on in France was going strangely unremarked-on.