{"id":70601,"date":"2009-03-13T06:50:22","date_gmt":"2009-03-13T06:50:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/13\/mais-il-se-trouve-que-sire-fait-sa-revolution\/"},"modified":"2009-03-13T06:50:22","modified_gmt":"2009-03-13T06:50:22","slug":"mais-il-se-trouve-que-sire-fait-sa-revolution","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/2009\/03\/13\/mais-il-se-trouve-que-sire-fait-sa-revolution\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2026Mais il se trouve que \u201cSire\u201d fait sa r\u00e9volution"},"content":{"rendered":"

Il y a la question de l’interpr\u00e9tation \u00e0 faire de l’action \u00e9conomique d’Obama, surtout depuis l’annonce de son budget gargantuesque et l’effet que cette annonce a engendr\u00e9 chez les tenants<\/a> de l’orthodoxie reaganienne et lib\u00e9rale. Alors, de quel bois se chauffe Obama?<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tRobert Reich tient l’argument qu’Obama est, du point de vue am\u00e9ricaniste, un r\u00e9volutionnaire. Il remet en question tous les principes sacr\u00e9s de Reagan. Dans son commentaire du 11 mars<\/a> sur son site, Reich, le plus \u00e0 gauche des \u00e9conomistes de renom soutenant Obama, oppose l’Obamanomics<\/em> \u00e0 la Reaganomics<\/em> (la doctrine \u00e9conomique d’Obama \u00e0 la doctrine \u00e9conomique de Reagan, qui a gouvern\u00e9 les USA depuis trente ans). Pour Reich, Obama a renvers\u00e9 le sens des priorit\u00e9s, en les faisant passer du capital au citoyen-travailleur<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abReaganomics didn’t believe in public investment, except perhaps when it came to the military. Everything else was considered government spending, which was assumed to be wasteful. Hence, the cuts (adjusted for inflation) during Reagan, Bush I and Bush II in education, job training, infrastructure, and basic research and development. And the reluctance to expand health insurance except when it came to corporate welfare for the pharmaceutical industry.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbBut Obamanomics is a commited to these forms of public investment. And there’s good reason: In a global economy, capital moves to wherever it can get the best deal around the globe. That means capital and jobs go to nations that can promise high returns either because labor is cheap and taxes and regulations low, or because labor is highly productive well educated, healthy, and supported by modern infrastructure.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbWhich do we want? For the better part of the last quarter century our implicit economic strategy has tended toward the first. But that’s a recipe for lower wages and lower living standards for most Americans, along with widening inequality. The only resource that’s uniquely rooted in a national economy is its people their skills, insights, capacities to collaborate, and the transportation and communication systems that link them together. Everything else including capital, technology, designs, even plant and equipment can move around the globe with increasing ease.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tIl en r\u00e9sulte que, oui, malgr\u00e9 les apparences qui pourraient faire croire \u00e0 un programme mod\u00e9r\u00e9, ou m\u00eame conservateur, l’action d’Obama est bien, selon Reich, r\u00e9volutionnaire. Disons qu’\u00e0 la mesure des USA, et surtout des USA des trente derni\u00e8res ann\u00e9es, le jugement est certainement \u00e0 consid\u00e9rer.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00abUnder Reaganomics, government was the problem. It can still be a problem. But Obamanomics recognizes there are even bigger problems out there that can’t be solved without government. By building the economy from the bottom up, recognizing the central importance of public investment, and understanding that markets cannot function without regulation, Obamanomics finally reverses and repudiates the economic philosophy that has dominated America since 1981.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\t\u00bbIf you look only at the small print, Obamanomics looks conservative. If you look at the big picture, it’s revolutionary.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

\tEt tout cela, finalement, constitue une r\u00e9ponse aux angoisses des l\u00e9gitimistes internationalistes du syst\u00e8me, dont Kaletsky<\/a> est le dernier porte-parole en date. (Malgr\u00e9 qu’il n’y a pas un mot de Reich, ni pour le G20, ni pour le syst\u00e8me, ni pour la situation ext\u00e9rieure, mais cela, en soi, est une r\u00e9ponse.) Effectivement Sire est fort pr\u00e9occup\u00e9 par les questions int\u00e9rieures qu’il entend traiter \u00e0 sa fa\u00e7on, et les angoisses du syst\u00e8me ne le pr\u00e9occupent gu\u00e8re. Sire fait sa r\u00e9volution et il y a de fortes chances que le G20 et le syst\u00e8me devront s’en accommoder.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\tMis en ligne le 13 mars 2009 \u00e0 06H55<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Il y a la question de l’interpr\u00e9tation \u00e0 faire de l’action \u00e9conomique d’Obama, surtout depuis l’annonce de son budget gargantuesque et l’effet que cette annonce a engendr\u00e9 chez les tenants de l’orthodoxie reaganienne et lib\u00e9rale. Alors, de quel bois se chauffe Obama? Robert Reich tient l’argument qu’Obama est, du point de vue am\u00e9ricaniste, un r\u00e9volutionnaire.… <\/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":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[7932,5397,6208,3215,3182,2879],"class_list":["post-70601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-g20","tag-kaletsky","tag-obama","tag-reagan","tag-reich","tag-revolution"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70601","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=70601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/70601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=70601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=70601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=70601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}