,
5 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Am perplexed by this @JananGanesh column on whether it's better for a country to have its wealth centralized in just a few major cities. He notes that such concentration has spurred populist resentment of recent years. But comes down in favor of it anyway. ft.com/content/6b5322…
@JananGanesh On the one hand, Ganesh writes this, which is absolutely correct: "The anti-metro rancour presently fouling the atmosphere in Britain and France is a touch less strong in Germany, with its scrupulous balance of regions."
@JananGanesh But he comes down in favor of this: "There is a case for concentration too...In previous centuries, nations scrambled for resources abroad. If there is an international race in this century, it is for talent..."
@JananGanesh "...Coveted as they are, the ablest people can choose to live in the cities with the very deepest capital markets, the very widest dining options, the very largest hub airports and remuneration terms..."
@JananGanesh "For a nation, having several wonderful cities will not be enough to tempt the mobile and gifted. It will have to have one city in the elite tier." In other words, better to have just London, even if it provokes provincial envy, than to have Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, etc. Really?
