{"id":70600,"date":"2009-03-13T06:17:31","date_gmt":"2009-03-13T06:17:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/13\/parlez-sire-parlez-suite-avec-angoisse-fortissimo\/"},"modified":"2009-03-13T06:17:31","modified_gmt":"2009-03-13T06:17:31","slug":"parlez-sire-parlez-suite-avec-angoisse-fortissimo","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/13\/parlez-sire-parlez-suite-avec-angoisse-fortissimo\/","title":{"rendered":"Parlez, Sire, parlez (suite avec angoisse fortissimo<\/em>)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Obama inqui\u00e8te de plus en plus le syst\u00e8me financier global, alors que le temps presse puisque le syst\u00e8me a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 que le G20 \u00e9tait une \u00e9tape vitale de la reconqu\u00eate de sa position perdue. Le billet d’Anatole Kaletsky du 12 mars<\/a> dans le Times<\/em> de Londres peut \u00eatre vu comme une poursuite et une accentuation inqui\u00e8te, voire singuli\u00e8rement angoiss\u00e9e, de l’article de Martin Wolf du 3 mars<\/a>, publi\u00e9 dans le Financial Times<\/em> et dans Le Monde<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tBien entendu, depuis le 3 mars, la situation a \u00e9volu\u00e9, et nullement dans le bon sens. Kaletsky constate une mauvaise volont\u00e9 \u00e9vidente, et une inattention coupable, dans le chef du pr\u00e9sident des USA, ainsi qu’une division radicale et vicieuse qui se d\u00e9veloppe aux USA. Il revient avec agacement, avec angoisse, sur l’affaire de l’absence d’activit\u00e9 au d\u00e9partement du tr\u00e9sor<\/a> US, qu’il attribue aussi bien aux querelles internes aux USA, qu’\u00e0 l’inattention du pr\u00e9sident Obama pour les affaires financi\u00e8res du monde et pour le syst\u00e8me. Il semble bien que cette affaire du d\u00e9partement du tr\u00e9sor traumatise la bureaucratie britannique qui est en charge des questions financi\u00e8res, qui pr\u00e9pare le G20 et qui semble la principale force pour tenter de mettre en place un accord remettant en selle le syst\u00e8me tel qu’il \u00e9tait, cette fois avec l’aide pleine et enti\u00e8re de la puissance publique. Il faut donc rameuter les troupes derri\u00e8re cet objectif, \u00abBut how can global co-operation be achieved when governments around the world seem to have completely divergent economic philosophies and agendas for this weekend?<\/em>\u00bb, et, pour cela, remettre en selle le leadership<\/em> am\u00e9ricaniste, dans le bon sens qu’on imagine<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abPast experience of such international negotiations shows that American leadership is necessary for reaching any kind of agreement. Which brings us to the greatest risk facing the world economy: Mr Obama’s failure to present a credible response to the financial crisis or even to assemble a proper economic policy team. After the British Government’s leaked messages of despair about nobody answering the phone at the US Treasury in the preparations for the G20, everybody is now aware that Mr Obama has nominated only two out of 18 deputy and assistant Treasury secretaries. What is less widely recognised is that this decision-making vacuum reflects a deeply worrying feature of US economic policy.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbAmerican politicians simply don’t seem to understand the existential threat that their economy is now facing. Instead of uniting to deal with a national emergency far more threatening to their way of life than the terrorist attacks of 9\/11, they have responded by dividing more sharply than ever into hostile partisan camps.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbEfforts to revive economic activity and to stabilise the financial system that are clearly indispensable on the basis of any economic analysis, whether Keynesian or monetarist or plain business-sense, have been denounced on the Right for interfering with free markets and on the Left for feather-bedding bankers. Instead of rallying around in a moment of crisis, many Americans are openly expressing their hope that the new President will fail and the economy collapse. Candidates for key Treasury posts have been viciously attacked in the media and Congress for trivial tax and administrative infractions inadvertently committed many years ago or simply for having once worked on Wall Street. As a result, these jobs have become almost impossible to fill.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbMr Obama himself seems to have attached a surprisingly low priority to dealing with the financial crisis. He had, for example, selected key State Department officials, from Hillary Clinton downwards even before his inauguration. He has managed to get dozens of these confirmed by Congress in the past two months and immediately put his personal stamp on US foreign policy. Yet there has been no similar focus on creating a properly functioning economic team or launching a coherent new response to the financial crisis.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbThe lack of urgency, of focus and of national unity in America’s response to the financial crisis is the most surprising – and most dangerous – threat to our chances of recovery. With clear American leadership, a global policy to stabilise the banks and pull the world out of recession could readily be agreed. All the main elements of such a policy – lower taxes, public works programmes, monetary and credit expansion, cast-iron government guarantees for recapitalised banks – are broadly agreed among economists and endorsed by global institutions such as the IMF.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbNone of these policies would be painful to voters, since they would involve easier financial conditions, lower taxes, more jobs and stronger guarantees for savings. Why then are they proving so hard to put into practice? Is it because many Americans would rather see their economy collapse than a Democratic President succeed? If so, then perhaps the Marxists now enjoying a new lease of life will have been right all along: American capitalism will have proved a decadent civilisation at the end of its global hegemony and doomed to self-destruction.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tLa chose \u00e9tant objectivement consid\u00e9r\u00e9e, il est bien possible que Kaletsky n’ait pas tort dans son analyse de la position US dans le cas du G20. On se trouverait alors devant une situation bien caract\u00e9ristique des illusions et des apparences caract\u00e9risant les convictions des uns et des autres. L’analyse est bas\u00e9e sur le fait que les USA sont le grand moteur derri\u00e8re la mise en place du syst\u00e8me tel que l’imaginent la City<\/em> et ses commentateurs depuis plus d’un demi-si\u00e8cle, et qu’il importe qu’ils retrouvent cette place pour donner l’impulsion n\u00e9cessaire au G20, dans le m\u00eame sens qu’on imagine \u00e9galement. C’est de ce point de vue que l’analyse de Kaletsky semble juste.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tMais cette analyse juste pour l’imm\u00e9diat repose-t-elle sur des fondements bien compris? Ne repose-t-elle pas sur une illusion, ou bien unquiproquo soigneusement dissimul\u00e9? En d’autres termes, les USA n’ont-ils pas soutenu le syst\u00e8me que dans cette mesure o\u00f9 cela rencontrait leurs int\u00e9r\u00eats, mais sans partager la conviction internationaliste des doctrinaires de la Financial Times<\/em>, du Times<\/em> et du syst\u00e8me? Aujourd’hui, on se trouverait dans la situation d’urgence o\u00f9 les int\u00e9r\u00eats des USA se concentrent d’abord sur leur situation interne, aggrav\u00e9e par une terrible bataille politique, et l’on mesure alors le cas qu’ils font du maintien en l’\u00e9tat du syst\u00e8me, de son r\u00e9tablissement n\u00e9cessaire selon la logique de ses partisans, dans la crise qu’il traverse.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 13 mars 2009 \u00e0 06H07 \u00e0 06H19<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Obama inqui\u00e8te de plus en plus le syst\u00e8me financier global, alors que le temps presse puisque le syst\u00e8me a d\u00e9clar\u00e9 que le G20 \u00e9tait une \u00e9tape vitale de la reconqu\u00eate de sa position perdue. Le billet d’Anatole Kaletsky du 12 mars dans le Times de Londres peut \u00eatre vu comme une poursuite et une accentuation… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[5513,7932,5397,3014,7054,2671,7025],"class_list":["post-70600","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-city","tag-g20","tag-kaletsky","tag-systeme","tag-tresor","tag-us","tag-wolf"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70600","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=70600"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70600\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70600"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70600"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70600"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}