Again, it is important to make a distinction between reforms and 'reforms'. The latter, in appropriate scare quotes refers in particular to the neo-liberal 'reform' package proposed to right all societies ills: Deregulation of everything, lower taxes, in particular for the well-off, erosion of labour rights, etc. The big winners of the neolib 'reforms' are large corporations and the well-off.

Further, this article questioned whether it is fair to use economic indicators the way the neolibs do in order to show a society in decline. As in, is France in relative terms more 'in decline' than say the UK? The answer is that this depends a lot on how you look at the numbers. As always, it is quite possible to arrange for the data to tell the story you'd like by careful cherry picking the indicators that seem in support. This game can be played both ways, and with slightly different definitions, say the one that excludes the super-wealthy in measures of GDP/capita, we find that France is not worse off than those who are supposedly the shining stars of economic greatness. Do you disagree with this? Do you believe that the indicators chosen, and their use, in the standard neolib argument is the correct one? Would you argue that a class of hyper wealthy is somehow important to the functioning of society, that their enrichment is a goal worth pursuing, and that excluding them from calculations of the 'wealth' of society (as lived by most people) is therefore incorrect? In general, do you have specific complaints about how this article uses available data, and its conclusions that the French economy is in fact not under-performing the ones presented as examples to follow?

You write that France needs drastic reforms. But does it need drastic 'reforms'? What is it exactly that you'd like to see from reforms/'reforms'? Easing the burden (tax/regulatory) on small business? Because with neolib 'reforms' that is a very small part indeed. I am sorry, but there is no way I would support reforms or 'reforms' that might achieve some improvement I would agree with when the collateral damage would be obscene wealth concentration and erosion of social protections for everyone else. This is the neolib way, the small business is not the ones they like to enrich, but the large capital markets, the large investors, and the large multinationals. This along side a race to the bottom on important issues such as environmental protections and labour rights. How to make the world safe for 'profits' to rise and rise, unencumbered by concerns for those that would be exploited in the process.