Les Etats-Unis sont-ils si libéraux?

[Blueglasnost]

Je viens de retrouver ce document (trouvé sur un site quelconque dont je n'arrive pas à me souvenir) dans mes archives et je voulais vous en faire part, histoire de voir ce que vous en pensez, c'est une peu long, mais je pense que vous trouverez cet essai assez intéressant (l'auteur est un libéral et un fervent anti-communiste d'après ce dont je me rappelle):

Let’s now debunk the deep-rooted myth of liberalism shining out every hole of the USA, the prejudice that America would be the archetype of an ultra-liberal country, the leading light of a deregulated system whose sole policy is the perpetuation of everlasting austerity measures. As you will soon realize, this is only a white lie.

Is the United States so liberal? The matter, though it may seem trifling, deserves to be looked more closely at, because the answer is to be pretty mitigated. Is this all about disputing the fact that the United States is practising a certain form of liberalism? Definitely not, we cannot seriously deny that the American labour market is shaped in a liberal framework, from a free-market approach, that is to say with a significant flexibility which goes hand in hand with a considerable geographic mobility, as well as unemployment benefits that are from being so generous as in France. It is all the more true since tax and social security contributions in the USA are half those of France, indeed, the tax burden was 27.1 % of GDP in America in 2005 against 44.1 % in France according to OECD’s figures. The United States would be, this being even firmly rooted in the very essence of the country according to the proponents of the thesis I am about to slate, fundamentally liberal, mostly economically. To this, I reply it is a delusory image some want to convey in order to conceal another completely different reality. Never mind, please fasten your belts and brace yourself for this insight of America’s economic situation to find out what is really going on!

The index of economic freedom calculated each year by the Heritage foundation and Wall Street Journal indicates that the United States is ranking 5^th in the world in 2008 with a 80.6 index, let’s notice that France is only 48^th (65.4) and Hong Kong (an example of economic freedom which was lavishly praised by Milton Friedman as of the 1980s) is 1^st, the latter country experienced a lightning development, incidentally¹. The US has a Constitution whose sources would be allegedly liberal, both economically and politically, this is true Benjamin Franklin met with Adam Smith, considered the founding father of liberalism, and was heavily influenced by French Enlightenment, yet does it suffice to swear that all Americans have been permeated with liberal ideas through and through? However, the current economic apparatus looks in all respects much more like Keynesianism in its logic. Some deem Keynes as a moderate Liberal, he even belonged with the Liberals (former political party in Britain), but I, for one, do think someone who so heftily stood for State interventionism in the economic life has more in common with certain collectivists than the overwhelming majority of liberal economists. The State is theoretically not very pervasive in the national economy across the Pond, nonetheless, you can only take into account the narrow overcrowding between Congress and the Federal Reserve Bank, which explains the last interventions of the national bank which gradually diminished its main interest rate so as to sustain the economic activity and prevent more households from going bankrupt at the risk of a recession which is already looming in the distance, at least according to think tanks. Obviously, you definitely prefer well-grounded evidence, a more concrete proof of what I am making a case for, of the omnipresence of this State, I am about to give you one. The United States has squandered roughly $16 bn in agricultural subsidies per year between 2002 and 2005 according to the figures Washington announced to the WTO, which obviously made some gnash their teeth in the WTO’s corridors in Geneva, but also on account of the principles defended by the ministerial conference of Doha. The said subsidies are something opposed to the very bases of liberalism, because they twist free competition and resemble dumping more than a positive-sum game as free trade should be. Of course, the EU is as guilty as the US in this field, because it also pays subsidies to its own farmers. Yet an authentic Liberal would have never supported such measures. Ditto, a President such as Ronald Reagan, famed for being a staunch Liberal, had announced the dramatic decrease of the prerogatives belonging to a sprawling and omnipresent State, however, both federal spending and bureaucracy effectively grew during his two mandates, which was combined with dwindling taxes, it therefore entailed (considering the Cold War context always required more and more military spending) an accretion in the federal public debt which increased by 200 % between 1980 and 1988! This occurred in spite of economists like Laffer (whose curve demonstrated the negative effect of taxes on tax revenue from a certain level upwards) surrounding and advising Reagan. We are thence very far from austerity measures preached by Liberals in such a situation, and from their will to ensure healthy finances and balanced budgets also… If you are seeking for true Liberals, you will probably be much more satisfied with Margaret Thatcher, a woman of character and an unswerving politician, whom I admire.

In the past, the US implemented antitrust laws (in the course of the 19^th century) to prevent key industries from conflating in order to avoid the formation of monopolies (which Adam Smith firmly opposed), now it rather benefits from such monopolies as Microsoft. If it were not for Airbus, Boeing would have most likely remained the sole significant plane maker all over the world. On the other hand, the EU still believes in anti-cartels legislation in the aggregate, it has been fining Microsoft regularly for abuse of dominant position on the market, let’s remember that Microsoft account for more than 90 % of the computer market on a global scale.

Now let’s revert to the point which precisely makes me say that the American economic device is made up from Keynesian facets rather than liberal ones; foreign trade and domestic consumption. You see, it has been several years since the United States is entangled in all but an enviable financial context due to the persistence of the twin deficits, as it is fit to name them. First, the trade deficit is expected to reach 4.6 % of GDP in 2008, a preoccupying level. How come? Americans are famed for being the initiators of mass consumption, their frenzy is unbounded when it comes down to shopping, at the extent it sometimes verges on hysteria. Once more, let’s me make this plain that the subject of this essay is not pointing at the Americans to find some scapegoats, nor is it about ascribing all the earth’s woes to them, it would be the silliest kind of anti-American demeanour worthy of a Bolshie. I have immense respect for America, like any other country. Money seems to burn a hole in every Westerner’s pocket in general (similar situations are to be seen in Spain for instance). The insatiable thirst of many Americans towards consumption has caused a hitherto unprecedented situation: the saving rate was negative during a moment! The households’ indebtedness is quite big, and has accrued lastly still, a great amount of people actually live beyond their means, and instead of leading a sober life they would rather have the latest cars, flat screens or oversized houses. If you compare these quirks and the real needs of these households with their financial means and their often unstable job situation, it is evident they cannot afford such a life. The problem is this consumption cannot be addressed by the mere output generated by American firms (no autarky is possible), the United States thus importing much more than what it actually exports, logically this wreaks a strong foreign constraint and a continuous deficit in the current-account balance. The will to sustain such a frantic consumption is an asset for the Bush administration, because it will fuel growth, create jobs, and allow some redistribution of the growth amidst the population, but it will not have a lasting effect, in fact it will only be a transient improvement. Reasoning so implies a Keynesian point of view in many respects. Firstly, such a macroeconomic analysis is only short-termed, and we know Keynes was especially keen on preaching short term estimates, one of his most celebrated quotations is enlightening: “In the long run we are all dead”. All right, John, but our children will be alive still, and I seriously doubt they are going to appreciate much the debt burden that their parents, out of sheer selfishness, have decided to put off (so that it will be the next generation’s business to deal with it) in order to enjoy a brief phase of growth… I am disposed to believe you cannot make estimates beyond a certain time, but you must not have an excessively reduced vision altogether, whatever Saint John thought about it. The mechanics is Keynesian, then it curiously looks like a reflationary policy with a voluntary budget deficit (deficit spending), it is all the more likely since the latest measures to diminish taxes have been motivated by the feeling that reducing taxes would allow consumption to increase (marginal propensity to consume designed by Keynes in his fundamental psychological law), and, by extension, increase the growth potential. As a matter of fact, the ruling class often hopes a surge in consumption would spur on entrepreneurs to invest (capital investment when for instance CUR [Capacities Use Rates] are close to the 100 % line). Those elements are part of a principle which is that of effective demand, the crux of Keynesian economics, it usually fixes the volume of employment and production. The problem is obvious: most of the Americans consume foreign imported products (for example massive imports of Toyota cars in the past), which worsens the trade deficit and contributes to the rapid progression of the country’s indebtedness. This situation is pretty severe on account of the fact that it puts the United States in a stance of dependence on such countries like China that purchased Treasury bills. I insist that such policies are typically Keynesian rather than liberal, Liberals basically object to too strong an indebtedness, moreover, they advocate balanced finances, at least true Liberals do, not those bogeymen who reckon imitating us, as apes do with men, will give themselves an air of assurance. Ditto, the first Liberals, amongst whom there were Puritans (in a religious sense), considered saving to be of vital importance in all circumstances, consumption (when deemed as superfluous) was banned as pure whim. So, we could wonder why and how the United States has lost their erstwhile ethics, but it is another matter I shall not encroach upon right now. Let’s make plain, before passing to a short résumé of what the future could hold in store, that a lasting current-account balance, beside the fact it will increase public debt, is a factor of imported inflation, a risk somewhat neglected by Keynes who encouraged a decrease in interest rates, monetary creation (expansive monetary policy), and the enlargement and generalisation of bank credits in order to diminish preference for liquidity (no hoarding, all in all money which does not produce interests). This risk could entail disasters, e.g.: losses in competitiveness, inflation, and even unemployment (albeit it is commonplace to abuse Liberals by interposing the Philips curve which shows a correlation between a low inflation rate and a high unemployment rate, a NAIRU [Non Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment] exists that refers to the threshold at which inflation is nil with minimal unemployment) by restricting firms’ outlets… It is part of the most typical flaws of Keynesianism, and it applies to the United States, the Federal Reserve Bank being a bit contradictory when it pretends it sees to a certain level of inflation (which it does not explicitly declare in comparison with the ECB’s avowed aim of maintaining inflation lower than 2 % per year), while in the same time, it vouches for full employment.

Most unfortunately, the odds are high that such policies will be carried on whoever the next President is. Barrack Obama is preaching for more taxes (which seems reasonable insofar as the situation is catastrophic) but he promises he will take anti-business measures (or at least he pretends he will to curry favour with a majority of electors who only know those problems superficially) and does not appear to take seriously the issue of how he could bring down astronomical deficits, judging by what I read about his manifesto (socialised health care, anti-NAFTA stances, social security…) in which he multiplies idle promises that will require tremendous funds, which would be wasted, should they be as unevenly distributed as in public health. The only fallouts would be the collapse of a country that has already been bled dry economically. John McCain will, as far as he is concerned, pursue tax-cuts policies, which could make things even worse off, since the war in Iraq is so ridiculously expensive. Don’t be mistaken, as a Liberal, I reckon taxes should be as low as possible for a much reduced State that would merely care about its main functions. Meanwhile, I believe that sometimes the end justifies the means, considering taxes in the US are already amongst the lowest all over the world, and higher taxes are perhaps justified (temporarily), even if I know it is a very unpopular measure to take. Margaret Thatcher did increase taxes once, and she managed putting Britain on the rails again, though it was admittedly not owing to this mere factor.

What is my proposal? I am no pundit, nor do I pretend to be one, only it just requires a little gumption to understand it is pure madness to carry on that way, digging deeper to accrue deficits by contracting more and more debts, as much public debt as household debt. Even if it means hampering growth potential during a moment, the next President ought to strive to stabilize finances first (if need be by increasing taxes or at least by stopping cutting them in order to carry out disinflation policies) before embarking on other undertakings, which are undoubtedly important but come second to the USA’s future stability. Because it is the 1^st world power, the crisis it is suffering from currently could well affect all the other economies throughout the world.

Through this succinct analysis, you can have a brief insight of what makes me say the United States is not as liberal in its mechanics as some like to say. We saw, inter alia, that some flaws of the American system have more in common with an excessive Keynesianism than a strict liberalism.

1. To find out more, click on the following link: http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/downloads/2008PastScores.xls

[Tremendo]

Je savais pas qu'un pays pouvait etre libéral,encore moins un état, peut-etre les américains ?

[Invité]

Si je considère que la guerre en Iraq est un braquage à main armé de station à essence (le pompiste a même été pendu),

que le gouvernement des Etats Unis a donné les biens volés à ses amis d'Exxon. (pour n'en citer qu'un)

Le gouvernement des Etats Unis n'est pas libéral.

D'ailleurs, un gouvernement est nécessairement pas libéral.

Après, sa guerre absurde contre les drogues n'est pas libéral non plus. (quid de l'avion CIA qui s'est écrasé avec des tonnes de cocaïne aux Etats Unis, et des drogues acheminés dans les cerceuils des GI pendant le Vietnam)

Après, sa guerre contre le terrorisme n'est pas libéral.

Une partie du peuple étatusien l'est surement.

Le gouvernement, absolument pas.

[Altore]

J'ai lu quelque part que le taux d'ouverture (part des exportations+importations ramenée au PIB) des Etats Unis n'etait que de 11%. Même s'il faut prendre en compte differents facteurs (taille du pays et donc dépendances eventuelles, position géographique), on est bien loin avec un pourcentage pareil de beaucoup de pays (la France se situerait autour des 25%-30%). Les Etats Unis sont donc loin d'etre des integristes du libre-échange tant ils semblent être assez protectionnistes sur de nombreux points.

[Blueglasnost]

Je savais pas qu'un pays pouvait etre libéral,encore moins un état, peut-etre les américains ?

Je suppose que l'auteur voulait dire que le gouvernement des Etats-Unis était libéral ou plus précisément, en lisant cet article, que le fonctionnement de leur économie n'est pas libéral. Son argumentation n'est pas trop mal, je trouve, car c'est vrai que l'on retrouve beaucoup de méthodes keynésiennes…

Si je considère que la guerre en Iraq est un braquage à main armé de station à essence (le pompiste a même été pendu),

que le gouvernement des Etats Unis a donné les biens volés à ses amis d'Exxon. (pour n'en citer qu'un)

Le gouvernement des Etats Unis n'est pas libéral.

D'ailleurs, un gouvernement est nécessairement pas libéral.

Après, sa guerre absurde contre les drogues n'est pas libéral non plus. (quid de l'avion CIA qui s'est écrasé avec des tonnes de cocaïne aux Etats Unis, et des drogues acheminés dans les cerceuils des GI pendant le Vietnam)

Après, sa guerre contre le terrorisme n'est pas libéral.

Une partie du peuple étatusien l'est surement.

Le gouvernement, absolument pas.

Je suis d'accord sur la plupart des sujets que tu évoques (effectivement ça fait un moment que le pompiste s'est vu passer un noeud coulant autour du cou…), sur le thème de la drogue, je suis on ne peut plus d'accord, la libéraliser serait sûrement y mettre un terme… Après, que les fondamentaux américains, que les Américains eux-mêmes soient soi-disant imprégnés de libéralisme, je pense effectivement que ce n'est vrai que pour une partie d'entre eux. Là où je ne suis pas d'accord, c'est quand tu dis qu'un gouvernement est nécessairement anti-libéral, je pense que cela dépend du degré de libéralisme dont on parle, pour moi l'Etat doit juste garder ses fonctions régaliennes fondamentales, mais c'est lui qui doit assurer la sécurité des citoyens et garantir leurs libertés, je pense donc qu'un gouvernement peut être libéral, après naturellement cela dépend si on parle de libéralisme politique ou de libéralisme économique… Pour ce qui est du gouvernement des Etats-Unis, nous sommes en revanche d'accord: absolument pas libéral.

J'ai lu quelque part que le taux d'ouverture (part des exportations+importations ramenée au PIB) des Etats Unis n'etait que de 11%. Même s'il faut prendre en compte differents facteurs (taille du pays et donc dépendances eventuelles, position géographique), on est bien loin avec un pourcentage pareil de beaucoup de pays (la France se situerait autour des 25%-30%). Les Etats Unis sont donc loin d'etre des integristes du libre-échange tant ils semblent être assez protectionnistes sur de nombreux points.

Effectivement, cela explique pas mal de choses. Mais j'ai l'impression que capter autant d'importations, outre le fait qu'il faut répondre aux besoins des Américains, est également un moyen pour les Etats-Unis de rester encore au centre du monde, mais ils ne concentrent pas autant de parts du commerce international qu'en UE, toutefois. Ils sont TRES protectionnistes, l'ironie dans tout cela c'est qu'ils veulent imposer le libre-échange ailleurs… Tout prouve qu'ils sont protectionnistes: législation tatilonne quand il faut refuser certains produits trop "présents", subventions agricoles… Même le déficit commercial de la France (39,2 milliards d'euros si je ne m'abuse, pour l'année 2007) paraît ridicule comparé au leur (4.6 % du PIB en 2008 dit l'auteur).

[Bastiat]

Je viens de retrouver ce document (trouvé sur un site quelconque dont je n'arrive pas à me souvenir) dans mes archives et je voulais vous en faire part, histoire de voir ce que vous en pensez, c'est une peu long, mais je pense que vous trouverez cet essai assez intéressant (l'auteur est un libéral et un fervent anti-communiste d'après ce dont je me rappelle):

Les americains ne sont pas plus liberaux par nature que tout être humain. Il sont juste protégés par la concurence des gouvernements des état et de bonnes institutions consacrées par une non moins bonne constitution.

[Blueglasnost]

Les americains ne sont pas plus liberaux par nature que tout être humain. Il sont juste protégés par la concurence des gouvernements des état et de bonnes institutions consacrées par une non moins bonne constitution.

C'est précisément ce que dit l'auteur en se moquant des suppositions de certains qui font du libéralisme un trait spontané au sein de population américaine… On ne naît pas libéral, on le devient.

[Invité jabial]

Si je considère que la guerre en Iraq est un braquage à main armé de station à essence (le pompiste a même été pendu),

Tu veux dire le propriétaire de la plantation qui exploitait l'esclavage des pompistes?

que le gouvernement des Etats Unis a donné les biens volés à ses amis d'Exxon. (pour n'en citer qu'un)

Y'a de ça en effet.

Le gouvernement des Etats Unis n'est pas libéral.

D'ailleurs, un gouvernement est nécessairement pas libéral.

Après, sa guerre absurde contre les drogues n'est pas libéral non plus. (quid de l'avion CIA qui s'est écrasé avec des tonnes de cocaïne aux Etats Unis, et des drogues acheminés dans les cerceuils des GI pendant le Vietnam)

Après, sa guerre contre le terrorisme n'est pas libéral.

Oui.

Une partie du peuple étatusien l'est surement.

Le gouvernement, absolument pas.

La partie libérale du peuple US semble se réveiller un peu, mais c'est loin d'être encore assez significatif pour permettre quoi que ce soit.