18 janvier 2009

Baisse du taux du livret A : les Français une nouvelle fois trompés… mais par qui ?


Avant hier, le gouvernement a annoncé la baisse du taux de rémunération du livret A, qui passe de 4 à 2,5%. Une mesure accueillie, semble-t-il, si ce n’est avec indignation, du moins avec perplexité (une nouvelle baisse est annoncée bientôt). L’information a fait la une, hier, du journal de 13h. Il faut dire qu’on touche là au placement préféré des Français : 4% sûrs car garantis par l’Etat, de quoi conforter nos concitoyens frileux dans l’idée qu’on peut gagner de l’argent sans avoir besoin de prendre de risque. C’est donc l’incompréhension : on accorde des prêts toujours plus avantageux aux banques et on sabote dans le même temps l’épargne la plus populaire. Quel méchant gouvernement, heureusement que les médias sont là pour redonner la parole aux Français.

 

            Pourtant, ce sont ces derniers qui apportent eux-mêmes la réponse aux questions. Cette dame, interrogée, disait : « avec un taux pareil, les gens ne vont plus épargner, ça ne vaut plus le coup ! Ils vont dépenser tout de suite ». Nul besoin d’aller plus loin, c’est tout le but de la manœuvre. Cependant, aucun média ne nous a expliqué le pourquoi du comment, alors qu’un simple rappel de quelques règles fondamentales d’économie auraient suffi à montrer qu’une telle réforme n’a rien d’idéologique, mais est au contraire d’une logique imparable. Petit cours d’économie…

 

-       Le taux d’intérêt, c’est le coût de l’argent. Or l’argent répond lui-même à la loi de l’offre et de la demande : la demande est fonction inverse du prix, contrairement à l’offre. En d’autres termes, quand le taux d’intérêt augmente, le prix de l’argent étant cher, les gens emprunte moins et placent plus (= demande de monnaie faible). A l’inverse, quand il est faible, les gens placent moins et empruntent plus (= demande de monnaie forte). Or à l’heure où la demande générale se contracte et où les banques ont tendance à resserrer le crédit, et donc freiner la consommation des ménages, la tendance peut être à la déflation, c’est à dire à la baisse de la demande entraînant la baisse des prix, ce qui mène à des pertes pour les entreprises, donc à du chômage, et donc à une nouvelle baisse de la demande. C’est la spirale déflationniste, et ce n’est JAMAIS souhaitable. Les gouvernement font donc tout ce qui est en leur pouvoir pour encourager le crédit et l’injection de liquidité dans l’économie. Pour cela, la baisse des taux de rémunération de l’épargne est nécessaire afin d’encourager les gens à la consommation et ainsi soutenir la demande.

-       De plus, la baisse du taux directeur de la BCE entraîne mécaniquement celle des taux de l’épargne. La plus-value des banques qui font du crédit est réalisée par la différence entre le taux de prêt et le taux de l’épargne. En d’autres termes, une banque, pour gagner de l’argent, prête toujours à un taux plus élevé au taux auquel elle rémunère les dépôts. Or, conséquemment à la baisse des taux du crédit, il est logique de baisser les taux de rémunération de l’épargne. Sinon, ce serait comme si on forçait une entreprise à vendre un produit à 5€ alors qu’il lui coûte 6€.

 

            Ainsi, madame a raison. Le gouvernement vous encourage délibérément à ne pas épargner, afin que vous consommiez plus. Seulement, personne n’est là pour vous expliquer pourquoi. Personne ? Pas la télé en tout cas…

9 décembre 2008

French people have to improve their economics skills, but whose fault is it?

            On November 20th, the French newspaper Les Echos (a French equivalent for the Wall Street Journal, basically) published a study from the Fondation nationale pour l’enseignement de la gestion des entreprises (FNGE) testing the skills of French people in economics. This is a very interesting study, but the interpretation the journalist makes of it is catastrophic, which shows that the media is for the most part misusing its power of influence.

 

            What does the study say? Basically, only 33% of them know that CEOs of the CAC40 are elected by the shareholders ; 71% do not know the real cost of a salary for the company (twice as much as the salary); 52% do not know what the field of Areva is; 81% do not know that there are only 50,000 French companies out of 2.6 million that have more than 100 employees; 57% do not know what a dividend is; 82% do not know that almost 80% of the French exports are going to the other countries of EU. And the worst are the following ones : 96% of French people do not know that there are less than 10% of employees having a time limited contract (CDD or interim), and 94% of them ignore that more than 200,000 people find a new job every month.

 

            This is such a terrible study, particularly when we know that most of the burning issues are about managers’ wages and stock options, the power of shareholders, precarious jobs and unemployment. The study shows that people are for the most part ignorant or wrong about those subjects, and this is a serious problem, because it does not prevent them from having a clear opinion about them. Thus (the following is not in the study!) they are easily in favor of increasing the minimum wage without knowing it can affect the economic activity badly and create unemployment; they are very hostile to shareholders without even knowing what their role is, how they choose the managers and how they earn their money (they just think it is too much!); and they think that companies are more prone to outsourcing than to creating jobs in the country. But they do not know what is really at stake in those issues, that the system is usually more complicated than they imagine, and (the most important) that reality is often different from what they see in the TV.

 

            If I sum up the Journalist’s interpretation of those results, French people are ignorant for the most part, and… that is sad, because they are lucky to be served by very good journalists who try hard to educate them about those issues. According to him, French people are maybe either not informed enough, indifferent, or ignorant. He – and he is not alone! – also wonders why the French have a bad image of companies, but thankfully everybody wants to work on improving this image! This kind of analysis really scares me, because it is evidence that the media is completely disconnected from reality.

 

            The statement is easy : French people are not ignorant because they are stupid, but because they are just badly informed! The vision they have of economy is only the reflection of what they see on the TV (and in other kinds of media)! If 94% of them do not know that there are more than 200,000 jobs created every month, it is only because they are used to seeing companies closing and jobs being suppressed on TV and never the jobs that are created. Also, if they believe that people having a precarious status are more than 10%, it is because the media is talking about them in a disproportionate way. According to me, this study does not show that French people are ignorant, it just gives the evidence that the media, and mainly TV, is doing its job very badly and misinforming people about what reality really is. This is very dangerous because it shows the real power of the media and its huge negative consequences when it is misused. 


            All the French people know the credo of the media saying that people are not interested in trains arriving on time. By giving a biased or incomplete image of reality that they present as reality itself, the media makes people forget the underlying elements that shape reality as much as striking events, but which are supposedly not interesting enough to be tackled on the TV, even in a 1-minute documentary. Thus, instead of blaming the French people for their skills in economics, we would better blame the media for their incompetence and their partiality…

10 novembre 2008

Obama’s victory from a French perspective



Tuesday November 4th at 6am . Phone call. that’s official, Barack Obama has become the president of the United States of America. I turn on the TV, and I see him pronouncing his speech at Grant Park. It’s a beautiful speech, and I am happy. Many people are certainly happier than me, of course in the US and also in France. Here in Paris many people celebrated the victory of Obama, in bars, in the street, and in my university – an event had been organized that night there. The huge majority of French people supported Obama. Not surprising, after 8 year of the Bush Administration. Even if none of us could vote (despite the fact that everybody agrees that we should protest against it since American politics affects the whole world!!!), many people were celebrating it as if it was their candidate who won, in their own country. Why?

 

First, it is because Obama sets an end to Bush’s America. Never had the reputation of the US been that low. Unilateralism that lead to the war in Iraq, tremendous increase of the deficit and debt, refusal to ratifying the Kyoto protocol, no significant improvement of Israeli-Arab relationships (despite the hard and good work of Condi Rice), economic and financial crisis. Obama’s victory – as much as Palin’s defeat! – sounds like the end of this America and the beginning of a new and more open one.

 

The second reason for Obama’s popularity in France – and not only– is related to what he represents; I mean the first black officially designated candidate for the presidential election. In Europe, we like this kind of story :  here the story of a man who seemed to have fulfilled what seemed to be an impossible dream for a black person, only thanks to his charisma and determination. Many people don’t really know – or don’t know at all – his political program, and don’t know his background – many people ignore he is not properly an “African American”. But they just do not care about it. Obama symbolizes an American dream that did not seem to exist over the last 8 years abroad and that has been suddenly revived.

 

A third reason is that Obama was undeniably the chosen candidate from the – French – media. It was very funny to see the supposedly “impartial” French media dealing with the American election over the night. Reporters were sent to Chicago and Washington, but none of them were sent to Arizona. We could also hear some words such as “thankfully, “good news” etc. The fact that he is the first black candidate really able to claim the presidency is an image that the media likes, particularly here in France, where there are many issues about racial and ethnic discriminations, integration, colonization etc. We all know how the media is the real 4th power in our countries, and how it is more than very difficult for anybody who has the media against him to be popular.

 

This general enthusiasm for Obama is very interesting, because it is not a unified and homogenous feeling. On the contrary, many people – particularly among people involved in politics – try rather to consider Obama’s victory as their own victory, the victory of their own ideas, their own political party. Basically, there is an implicit competition about who is the happiest regarding Obama’s victory. Wednesday morning, just after Obama’s official victory, a French socialist was saying on the TV that Obama’s first speech (and ideas in general) were close to the French left. Personally, I don’t think that talking about patriotism, working “harder”, and ending with “God bless you” has anything to do with French socialism. On the contrary, he doesn’t oppose the right to bear arms, nor death penalty. He is not properly a pro-choice activist either. Economically, let us not forget that he is American, so he won’t contest the generally free-market principles admitted there. Even if he supports more public intervention in different fields and plans to raise the taxes a bit, it does not mean he is a socialist. On the contrary, the Bush Administration would be more likely socialist, given the extent to which it increased the debt! (Don’t forget that the debt is the future taxes!).

In other words, Obama’s policy won’t be fundamentally different from what has been done in American politics until now. He can change a lot about how to do things, America’s image in the world, and how to make American power more acceptable in the world, which is already a lot.

 

This discrepancy between what we expect (particularly in Europe) of Obama and what he’ll really do sort of worries me. This competition to pull the cover of Obama’s victory on ourselves completely has completely blinded many people about reality. This is detrimental to the extent that Obama’s image has been made instrumental for political ends. Supporting Obama is fashionable, so we have to support Obama for our reputation, our personal popularity. The one who does not support Obama is Bush’s supporter, very conservative etc. Obama now represents all the values of freedom, integrity, tolerance, equality, openness, and his image has been much idealized, which is very dangerous, particularly before he really starts to tackle the main national and international issues.

That can be very unhealthy, because everybody is going to use Obama’s image to give the evidence of relevance of their own programs and claims. Socialists insist on progress, right wing people insist of the proper similarities of the two programs, anti-racism associations insist on the fact that France does not favor minorities’ integration sufficiently. Indeed, many people openly use Obama’s victory to promote their claims, particularly the activists for more “diversity”.


I think there are several dangers in thinking that way, and we should not let blind ourselves by this biased image. The worst thing to do would be to reduce Obama to his characteristics of being the first black president. Obama is the president of the whole American people, graduated from Harvard Law School, was senator of Illinois etc. He is an American elite, not a leader of any black movement. He is now the president of the US, and even if his victory meant a lot for most African-Americans (we’ll all remember the tears of Jesse Jackson!), it cannot be reduced to the victory of a black person, but of the best candidate in this election. Obama’s political ideas are colorblind, and there is a danger in presenting his victory only as a black person’s one. Indeed there is a very fine line in thinking that his victory is a kind of revenge from an oppressed community. Looking at Obama’s election from the angle of color too much could eventually increase racial dissensions again, not only in the US but also far beyond. We have to consider Obama first as what he is first and foremost, that is the best candidate in that election.

 

More over, we should not forget, neither Americans, nor French people that Obama has been elected by the American people to defend their national interests domestically and in the world. We have to be sure of that : THE BASICS OF AMERICAN POLITICS IN THE WORLD WILL NOT CHANGE. Indeed we can expect less contempt than during Bush’s term, relations can be smoother than before, and maybe Obama will understand better than George W. Bush that the global interest gets along with America’s long term interest (that’s our only realistic hope for things to be better regarding economics, international relations and global warming). But Obama has been elected to defend the challenged American 1st position in the world, and it’s not because most of foreigners love Obama that he will forget what he has been elected for.

 

If we don’t understand that, there will be a tremendous disappointment for everybody. Indeed, despite Obama’s virtuous qualities and his undeniable integrity, he does not come with a magical wand, and actually his breathing space as president will be very tight (Iraqi and Afghan quagmires, financial and economic crisis, huge debt and deficit). With this space, he is likely to use it to defend American interests first and foremost, and we have to be conscious of that. This is certainly a key element to remember and not to be disappointed by Obama in the future.

 

Do I give a pessimistic image of what Obama can bring to the world? I don’t think so. Obama has been elected because of the deep change Americans want in their political scene. Changing the image of America in the world is already a huge challenge, and the enthusiasm that has been aroused by Obama’s victory allows us to hope a future better than the past eight years, but from a sensible and realistic hope and not an idealist feeling. That is how I feel about Obama’s election, and even if his name is already written on the pages of History as the first black president of the US, let’s give him the opportunity to write some more as a great and competent one.