…Mais il se trouve que “Sire” fait sa révolution

Il y a la question de l’interprétation à faire de l’action économique d’Obama, surtout depuis l'annonce de son budget gargantuesque et l’effet que cette annonce a engendré chez les tenants de l’orthodoxie reaganienne et libérale. Alors, de quel bois se chauffe Obama?

Robert Reich tient l’argument qu’Obama est, du point de vue américaniste, un révolutionnaire. Il remet en question tous les principes sacrés de Reagan. Dans son commentaire du 11 mars sur son site, Reich, le plus “à gauche” des économistes de renom soutenant Obama, oppose l’“Obamanomics” à la “Reaganomics” (la doctrine économique d’Obama à la doctrine économique de Reagan, qui a gouverné les USA depuis trente ans). Pour Reich, Obama a renversé le sens des priorités, en les faisant passer du capital au citoyen-travailleur…

«Reaganomics 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.

»But 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.

»Which 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.»

Il en résulte que, oui, malgré les apparences qui pourraient faire croire à un programme modéré, ou même “conservateur“, l’action d’Obama est bien, selon Reich, “révolutionnaire”. Disons qu’à la mesure des USA, et surtout des USA des trente dernières années, le jugement est certainement à considérer.

«Under 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.

»If you look only at the small print, Obamanomics looks conservative. If you look at the big picture, it's revolutionary.»

Et tout cela, finalement, constitue une réponse aux angoisses des légitimistes internationalistes du système, dont Kaletsky est le dernier porte-parole en date. (Malgré qu’il n’y a pas un mot de Reich, ni pour le G20, ni pour le système, ni pour la situation extérieure, – mais cela, en soi, est une réponse.) Effectivement “Sire” est fort préoccupé par les questions intérieures qu’il entend traiter à sa façon, et les angoisses du système ne le préoccupent guère. “Sire” fait sa révolution et il y a de fortes chances que le G20 et le système devront s’en accommoder.

Mis en ligne le 13 mars 2009 à 06H55