Ulysse Gosset – Bienvenue sur France 24 pour cette nouvelle édition du Talk de Paris. Sommes-nous à la veille d’une récession, à la veille d’une nouvelle crise de 1929, avec un krach qui ferait tremble la planète ? La question est sur toutes les lèvres en ce début d’année. La flambée du prix du pétrole, la situation alarmante des banques américaines, Wall Street qui se vend au plus offrant, la Chine qui rachète les grandes banques d’affaires, les bijoux de famille de l’Amérique… autant de symptômes des dangers qui menacent. Pour tenter d’y voir plus clair, notre invité est l’ancien ministre de Bill Clinton, Robert Reich, auteur prolifique et professeur à l’université de Berkeley en Californie. Dans son dernier livre il affirme que le « supercapitalisme » risque de provoquer la mort de la démocratie. Robert Reich, bonjour.

Robert Reich – Bonjour.

Ulysse Gosset – Je salue aussi la présence sur ce plateau de Stéphanie Antoine, qui est experte de l’économie sur France 24. Cette édition s’annonce particulièrement passionnante, étant donné que la campagne présidentielle américaine bat son plein aux Etats-Unis. Et l’on va de surprise en surprise. Hillary Clinton et Barack Obama chez les Démocrates, et du côté des Républicains le mormon Mitt Romney, ou l’ancien pasteur Mike Huckabee, ou encore le sénateur John McCain : qui, à votre avis, Robert Reich, va gagner ? Est-ce que ce sont les Démocrates ou les Républicains qui vont succéder à George Bush ?

Well, that’s obviously the big question. I think the Democrats have a much better chance, now, than Republicans. Because Bush is so unpopular. Two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the job George Bush has been doing. Unfortunately, for Republicans, this is redounding to the increase in their negative scores. Also, the economy is so poor. And, if it continues to worsen, this will also help the Democrats. I don’t want to wish for a bad economy… But, combined, Bush and his bad reputation, the Bush foreign policy, and the bad economy, give us Democrats a huge advantage.

Est-ce que, à votre avis, l’Amérique est prête pour avoir une femme présidente à la Maison Blanche. Ou même, encore plus, un Noir à la Maison Blanche ? Est-ce qu’ils sont prêts, les Américains ?

Well, we’ll find out. People were very surprised that Barack Obama, a Black American, could win Iowa’s Primary with 95% white votes. This was a historic event for America. Many Americans said it couldn’t possibly be done. But, again, 95% of the voters in Iowa were white, Barack Obama won that primary, and people began to say, “Well, it is possible for a black person to be President.”

Et vous, personnellement, entre Barack Obama et Hillary Clinton, vous allez voter pour qui ?

Well, I’m not going to tell you who I’m going to vote for [laughs]. Hillary Clinton is an old friend. I’ve known her for 42 years. Barack Obama I have got to know as he has been Senator, and I am very impressed. I think either of them would be a terrific president. I think John Edwards would be good as well although, quite candidly, I don’t think he is going to last much longer in the primaries. I think it will be a contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Stéphanie Antoine – Alors, en ce qui concerne la politique économique, George Bush, pour faire face à la crise, veut baisser les impôts de près de 100 millions de dollars. Les candidats démocrates comme Hillary Clinton et Barack Obama semblent prêts à aller encore plus loin puisqu’ils veulent baisser les impôts mais aussi accroître les dépenses fédérales. Hillary Clinton voudrait même aider les ménages défavorisés en créant un fonds de 30 milliards de dollars. Alors, êtes-vous plutôt favorable à la politique de Bush ou à la politique des Démocrates ? Quelle est la politique économique qui va être efficace pour, justement, juguler cette crise ?

A stimulus – a fiscal stimulus – is very difficult to put into effect because it usually takes time. Right now, the American economy is facing recession. Something needs to be done right now. By the time a fiscal stimulus got through Congress, it may be too late. If it is going to be a fiscal stimulus, my judgment would be that it would have to be fairly large; probably closer to Barack Obama’s US$ 75 billion than to Hillary Clinton’s US$ 70 billion. And it would have to be the sort of tax break that could immediately be put into effect. Government spending tends to take even longer than legislation. The Federal Reserve Board, also, is going to have to reduce interest rates quite substantially. There, too, the question is how quickly it can act – and how quickly it will act.

Ulysse Gosset – Mais ça veut dire, Monsieur Reich, qu’on va baisser les impôts encore plus que ne l’a fait George Bush. C’est possible ? En France on est encore en train de débattre de cela.

Temporarily. It will be a temporary tax cut. The Democrats are very concerned about leaving a very large fiscal hole in the Budget. When Bill Clinton ended his presidency in the 1990s, there was a US$ 5 trillion surplus. George Bush took that US$ 5 trillion surplus and gave it as a tax benefit - mostly to the rich-, and spent extraordinary sums on the military and on what we call corporate welfare - on aid to oil companies, pharmaceutical companies, or what have you. He has turned that US$ 5 trillion surplus into a US$ 4 trillion higher debt. So the Democrats, if they do recapture the White House, would come in with their hands tied behind their backs. There would be very little money to do much of anything. It’s a replay of what happened in 1992/1993. You recall that Reagan and the first George Bush spent like mad. They spent on the military, reduced taxes, and ended up with a very large Federal Budget deficit. Bill Clinton and his cabinet came in and we wanted to do a lot in terms of job training, education, healthcare, etc., but we found it was almost impossible because there was no money.

Ulysse Gosset – Alors nous allons revenir sur les risques de récession mais je voudrais d’abord, comme le veut la tradition de cette émission, que nous regardions votre parcours personnel avec ce portrait qui a été réalisé par une journaliste de la Rédaction de France 24, Melissa Chemam. Regardons ensemble.

(Portrait)

Ulysse Gosset – Il y a une question que les français ne comprennent pas : pourquoi, en huit ans de présidence, donc deux mandats de quatre ans, Bill Clinton n’a pas réussi a faire avancer l’idée d’une couverture de santé universelle pour tous les américains (qui fait qu’aujourd’hui, encore, il y a plus de 30 millions d’américains qui ne sont pas couverts) ? Comment vous expliquez que le Président démocrate – et son épouse, qui était pourtant favorable à cette réforme – n’aient pas réussi au moins à faire les premiers pas ?

It was a great tragedy that we were not able to do more. The lobbyists – particularly insurance companies, hospitals and the medical establishment – were all against the healthcare plan. But, most importantly, the Republicans saw in the defeat of healthcare an opportunity to gain control. If they could discredit the new President, and his wife – who was in charge of the healthcare taskforce – they could convince the American people, perhaps, they thought, that they could do a better job. And they did discredit Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. The plan itself was very complicated. It was easy to mischaracterize. Republicans used it to gain power. And they took over Congress in the start of 1995.

Ulysse Gosset – Alors, si Hillary devenait Présidente, ou si Obama devient Président, est-ce qu’ils vont relancer cette réforme, à votre avis ?

I believe so. Not as complicated a reform; a much simpler version. And, I think, a more incremental one. Also, if Democrats have a greater control over Congress - as I think they are likely to, given the unpopularity of Republicans; if they gain, for example, 60 votes in the Senate, giving them the opportunity to get legislation through without what is called a filibuster, I think the chances are very, very good. Also, please note that not only are many more Americans uninsured today than in 1992/1993, but the average middle-class American is paying far more for health insurance than before. In fact, the percentage of the average middle-class American’s budget going to health insurance is causing worry that they might not be able to afford it much longer. And this creates a great deal of political support for national healthcare.

Ulysse Gosset – Alors, venons-en à la récession. Quel est votre avis sur ce qui se passe dans le monde aujourd’hui ? Alan Greenspan, l’ancien président de la Réserve Fédérale, a dit que les premiers pas, les premiers symptômes, sont déjà là. Est-ce que nous sommes entrés en récession. Est-ce que vous redoutez, pour 2008, une véritable récession ?

I do. I think it’s very, very likely. Whether it’s 60% likelihood or 80% probability I don’t know. But it’s very, very likely. I hope it’s not a severe recession but we simply don’t know the extent of the credit crisis. Every time we think we’re at the end of the credit crisis it looks even worse, American banks are writing down so many loans - we’re having tens of billions of dollars of write-downs right now -, the banking industry, insurance industry and mortgage industry have all been hit. But, also, American consumers are very worried. Remember housing was their number-one asset. As housing values decline, Americans have less savings. They can’t borrow against their homes the way they could before. So consumer demand is going to decline. And, as consumer demand declines, there is simply less reason for businesses to continue to produce. In other words, we have all of the makings of a very serious recession.

Ulysse Gosset – Donc vous dites que la récession est probable, malheureusement. Alan Greenspan, l’ancien président de la Réserve Fédérale, dit que les premiers pas sont là. Est-ce que vous pensez que l’on va vers une crise aussi grave, aussi profonde, que celle de 1929 ?

Oh, no. I would be very surprised. You see, unlike 1929, the central banks in the United States and Europe, and other central banks around the world, can generate a lot of liquidity, a lot of money, at very short notice. There is adequate regulation, I believe, and adequate capacity to generate money, to avoid the worst of the 1929 banking crisis and depression. But my fear is an economic contraction. Here in Europe, I talk to a lot of economists who say, “Well, the European economy is less dependent on the American economy than it used to be, it’s decoupled from America.” To some extent, that’s true. Because demand inside Europe, and demand in China, in India, and elsewhere in Asia, have supplanted – to some extent – American consumer demand for European goods. But don’t fool yourselves: if there is a severe recession in America – or even a moderate recession – it will be felt, unfortunately, in Europe. Decoupling has not occurred completely.

Stéphanie Antoine – Dans votre livre vous parlez du triomphe du « supercapitalisme ». Est-ce que cette crise marque un coup d’arrêt à ce supercapitalisme ?

I think that supercapitalism certainly is contributing to it. Because, you see, capital markets are now almost entirely global. There’s no such thing as a French company or a German company. There are a few, but they’re playing the same competitive game as every other corporation in the world. They all have to compete for capital on the same basis. The often have to compete for consumers on the same basis. They increasingly have to compete for talent - there is a global talent pool that they are all seeking. So, when a recession or any economic crisis hits one nation – particularly when it hits the capital markets, the credit markets, it has a multiplier effect around the world very, very suddenly. We are all borrowing from the same trough, as it were.

Stéphanie Antoine – Donc cette crise est inhérente au supercapitalisme ?

I won’t say it’s a crisis inherent in supercapitalism. I think it points out the need for coordinated government action. The Federal Reserve Board, for example, will probably reduce interest rates. But if the European Central Bank does not follow suit, if the European Central Bank is more worried about inflation than about recession, they could cancel out each other. Again, we’re dealing with a global money supply and global credit markets. We have much more need for integration and coordination among our regulatory agencies than ever before.

Ulysse Gosset – Robert Reich, quand vous voyez que des fonds étrangers, des fonds étatiques chinois, du Moyen-Orient ou d’ailleurs, aident les banques américaines à survivre, à surmonter la crise, qu’est-ce que cela signifie ? Est-ce que, d’une certaine manière, les Occidentaux (nous-mêmes les Français, les Américains…) ne sommes pas maintenant piégés par ces fonds ?

Well, I don’t think we’re being trapped. After all, the United States have been borrowing about US$ 3 billion a day, mostly from Asia. I think it’s better that they invest directly and take an equity stake in America than we continue to borrow. Borrowing puts in a much greater dependency, in a much greater disadvantage, than equity. Equity stakes go up and down with the economy – as we can see with the Stock Market today. And remember we are a global capital market. If sovereign equity funds were to distort their decision-making processes or investments, and impose some sort of political control, seeking political objectives, there would be a very powerful backlash in the United States – as, I’m sure, there would be in Europe. After all, the assets continue to be within the borders of the United States and within the borders of Europe. And sovereign wealth funds do not want that to occur.

Ulysse Gosset – Qu’est-ce que cela veut dire pour le monde et pour l’Amérique, l’arrivée de ces fonds massivement, ces fonds qui investissent dans Merrill Lynch, dans Morgan Stanley, etc. Quel est le symbole de ce qui se passe ? Ça veut dire que le pouvoir change de camp ? Qu’il se déplace vers la Chine, vers l’Inde, vers le Moyen Orient ? Qu’est-ce que cela veut dire pour vous ?

Power has already shifted to China. China is one of the centers of global capitalism. The great irony is that it’s called “Communist”. But, in fact, China is capitalist. In fact, global capital markets and supercapitalism, as I indicated in the book, are pushing China to provide ever greater economic freedoms. Not political or civil freedoms, but economic freedoms. We may be seeing a new form of capitalism in China. Not democratic capitalism, but authoritarian capitalism, in which economic rights are preserved but civil and political rights don’t exist. I hope that’s not the case…

Ulysse Gosset – Ça veut dire que l’Amérique n’est plus le superpouvoir, la superpuissance, et que c’est la Chine qui le devient ?

I don’t think America is the major power. At least it don’t think it will be in the future. Global capital markets are, by definition, global. China, just as Japan in the 1980s, will have a more dominant role to play.

Ulysse Gosset – Oui, mais c’était quand même l’hyperpuissance…

America, technically, is still the world’s superpower. But, if you look below the surface, if you look at the lending and borrowing that has been going on, at the imbalances in the global economy – particularly between Asia and the United States, not just the trade imbalance but also the imbalance with regard to capital – you see that America is very dependent on China. But, you see, China is also dependent on the United States. Creditors that lend substantial amounts of money are as dependent on their debtors as their debtors are on them. China would lose a huge amount of money if it allowed the US Dollar to decline too much too fast. Or if it in any way tried to interfere in the inner workings of any other country. If China is going to succeed as a capitalist country - even though it’s not democratic- has got to act capitalist. It has got to maximize its returns, just as any shareholder would do under the new laws of supercapitalism.

Ulysse Gosset – Robert Reich, merci. Nous arrivons à la fin de la première partie de cette émission. Nous allons revenir dans la deuxième partie sur Nicolas Sarkozy et ses projets de réforme. Vous nous direz ce que vous en pensez, mais d’abord regardons ensemble le journal de France 24 et nous nous retrouvons avec Stéphanie Antoine dans quelques minutes. A tout de suite.

(Journal)

Ulysse Gosset – Retour sur le plateau du Talk de Paris avec Robert Reich, grand économiste et ancien ministre de Bill Clinton, et Stéphanie Antoine, spécialiste de l’économie sur France 24. Robert Reich, vous êtes à Paris et j’aimerais vous demander ce que vous pensez de Nicolas Sarkozy. Quelle est son image en Amérique ? Et vous, qui êtes économiste, est-ce que vous croyez aux réformes qu’il a lancé, est-ce qu’il peut, justement, réussir, compte tenu de la récession que vous nous avez confirmé au début de l’émission ?

Well, you asked me two different questions: one about his image in the United States and another about whether he can succeed in his reforms. His image in the United States, I would say, is very positive. People are excited by a dynamic French politician who seems very much like Tony Blair in the early years, and unlike what we have been accustomed to see in French politicians. I don’t want to in any way denigrate French politicians, but he seems very lively and very interesting. Whether he can succeed in terms of economic reforms, it seems to me – and I don’t want to be presumptuous; you know France much better than I do – that, if we are heading into recession in the United States, and if that recession does slow down economic growth in Europe, it’s going to be harder to change the economy. Simply because people will get more nervous. Social anxiety does not generate an environment for economic reform.

Ulysse Gosset – Alors, dans ce contexte, qu’est-ce que vous conseilleriez au président français ? Que doit-il faire ?

Now you’re asking me to get very presumptuous [laughs]. It seems to me that any leader – and I don’t want to talk about what a French President ought to do; I’m telling you what I would advise presidents in the United States to do because I have been in that position before – has to sell the public, has to educate the public. This is what American presidents who were successful tried to do. Being a citizen is not a one-way street. It’s not just a matter of receiving benefits. John F. Kennedy famously said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.” Citizenship entails some responsibilities. Some sacrifices. Citizens might be willing to make some sacrifices if they understood why. If they understood the greater good. And one of the responsibilities of a politician is to educate citizens about why sacrifices are necessary. Now, whether Sarkozy is doing that or not, and how he goes about doing that, is another matter.

Ulysse Gosset – Juste une chose qui touche toute l’économie – aussi bien la France et l’Europe que les Etats-Unis : Sarkozy se plaint toujours que l’euro est trop fort alors que le dollar est très bas. Vous pensez que c’est bon pour l’économie, ce décalage ? Est-ce que c’est bon pour l’Amérique ? Est-ce que c’est mauvais pour l’Europe ? Qu’est-ce que vous en pensez ?

Look, a lot of people in political life complain about the level of the currency. But, to the extent that currency levels are set by supply and demand – and I think that’s what’s happening with the US dollar, it’s dropping relative to the euro because it is so encumbered by debt and because foreigners are losing confidence that the American economy will do any better in the immediate future – the dollar is simply going to drop.

Ulysse Gosset – Mais vous pensez qu’un jour l’euro peut remplacer le dollar comme monnaie étalon dans le monde?

Not entirely. But any sensible large investor – including, I might add, the oil-producing nations – is necessarily going to diversify their currencies. They won’t hold only dollars: they’re going to hold euros, they’re going to hold yen, they may hold yuan. Diversification is a sensible strategy because all of these currencies are moving against each other. So, while the euro is unlikely to become the single world’s reserve currency, it may become a secondary reserve currency with the dollar.

Stéphanie Antoine – Nicolas Sarkozy parle aussi beaucoup de moralisation du capitalisme financier. Angela Merkel, la chancelière allemande, également. On essaye de trouver des coupables à la crise (les « hedge funds », les agences de notation…). Dans votre livre vous dites que les entreprises ne sont pas responsables, puisqu’elles ne sont pas des personnes. Est-ce que cela signifie que la moralisation du capitalisme est une idée vaine ?

I think it is not possible to make companies be or act more morally than they do. Because, under global capitalism, every company, every large company, is competing intensely for capital, for consumers, and for talent. No company can sacrifice consumer returns or investor returns for the sake of some social objective. Even if a company knew what the social objective was. And without laws or rules, there is no guidance. Companies are talking more and more about corporate social responsibility. In my experience, much of that is public relations. It burnishes the company image (no company wants to have a bad image). But, absent laws and rules, companies can not – in this highly competitive world environment – be expected to be “socially responsible”. This is not what I hope. I am explaining. I am predicting the direction of global capitalism. I’m not saying it’s justifiable. I wish companies would be and could be more socially conscious. But it’s just a pipe dream.

Stéphanie Antoine – Est-ce que vous êtes favorable à une plus grande réglementation du capitalisme financier, de la sphère financière ?

It depends on the kind of regulation we’re talking about. A lot of regulation is nonsensical. After the looting of companies, the Enron affair in the United States, we had a whole set of new regulations going into effect. But, in my view, they were too draconian. They were too restrictive. They actually hurt the American capital market. The pendulum, you see, after some sort of a scandal, moves toward too much regulation, and then gradually moves back and on to deregulation - occasionally when you need at least some regulation. Getting the regulation just right is like aiming for a moving target.

Stéphanie Antoine – Les « hedge funds » il faut les réglementer, par exemple ?

Hedge funds need to be regulated. Yes, absolutely. Hedge funds don’t even know what they’re holding. But, after the credit crisis we’ve just endured, it would seem to me that one object of regulation ought to be credit-rating agencies. They were giving triple-A ratings to a lot of these securities that proved to be almost worthless. There are conflicts of interest in the financial community. And those conflicts of interest are detrimental to the good workings of capitalism. The irony here is that we’re telling China to be more transparent in terms of capitalism. We’re saying, “If we’re going to invest in China (‘we’ being global investors), we want more transparency.” But the United States’ capital markets have to be much more transparent. They’re not transparent enough. Just look at what’s happened with our credit crisis.

Ulysse Gosset – Robert Reich, vous étiez à Paris notamment pour participer à une conférence à l’IFRI, le fameux Institut français des relations internationales. Je vous propose d’écouter, à ce propos, une question du Directeur des questions économiques de cet institut, Jacques Mistral, que nous allons regarder ensemble.

M. Reich, bonjour. Vous êtes très connu en Europe parce que vous êtes un américain nettement classé à gauche. Et vous ne trahissez pas cette réputation puisque votre dernier ouvrage s’appelle « Supercapitalism ». En entendant cette expression, certains en Europe ne manqueront pas de penser à Lénine et au stade suprême du capitalisme. Alors votre thèse c’est que ce super capitalisme bouleverse les structures de la société, pénètre la conscience des individus et, finalement, met en péril le fonctionnement de la démocratie elle-même. Mais qu’en est-il en Europe ? Ce qui frappe ici c’est plutôt le vieillissement des structures économiques et sociales. La difficulté de la réforme. Ici les gens s’expriment et la démocratie semble bien vivante. Mais elle fait souvent obstacle au changement. Alors, l’Europe a-t-elle une chance d’inventer un mélange entre démocratie et capitalisme qui soit à la fois plus tonique et plus moral que ce que nous avons aujourd’hui, ou bien votre ouvrage vient-il à l’appui de ceux qui purement et simplement refusent la globalisation et l’adaptation au monde moderne ?

My book stands for a very simple proposition – which is also very controversial. On the left as well as on the right. And that is that we are all consumers. And, as consumers, we want the best deal. Globalization and international markets are giving us the opportunity to get fabulous deals. But where do we think the great deals come from? They come from companies that are competing desperately with one another for our dollars. Those companies, in order to give us good deals, are cutting wages, cutting payrolls, outsourcing, sometimes hiring children in Southeast Asia, and doing many things that violate our social ideals. But you understand – or must understand – that it is us, we as consumers, and many of us as investors, I for my pension fund, for example, at the university, who are unwillingly pushing global companies to do many things that, again, are inconsistent with my social values. Democracy is the place in which, ideally, we address this cognitive dissonance between what we want as consumers and investors, and what we want as citizens or workers. And that’s why it’s so important that democracy work. I reject the standard leftist view that globalization is bad, that corporations are evil and that CEOs are necessarily greedy. No. We have got to take responsibility – we as consumers and investors – for what is happening. That’s why democracy is so essential.

Ulysse Gosset – Pour prolonger la question de Jacques Mistral, est-ce que l’Europe a une chance d’inventer un modèle différent ? Une « troisième voie », comme dirait Tony Blair ?

Well, Tony Blair tried. And I think it is very important that Europeans not be naïve about the power of global capitalism. French companies are being taken over if they don’t deliver high returns on investment. Private equity is taking them over. Or big global firms are taking them over. Or, as we mentioned before, sovereign wealth funds are taking them over. Companies in Europe, unfortunately for Europe, can no longer adhere to the old ideal of stakeholder capitalism in which corporate CEOs were not only answerable to shareholders and consumers, but also to employees, to communities and to all sorts of other stakeholders. Does that mean, however, that Europeans have to give up all of their social ideals? Not at all. It’s just that the social ideals can no longer be expressed through corporations. They need to be expressed in a different way. And the challenge for Europe – and it’s a very, very large challenge for America – is to reform democracy in such a way that our democracies can express those social ideals. And that we can do it across borders. Because, of course, one country, in terms of global capitalism, can not do it all.

Ulysse Gosset – A propos de Nicolas Sarkozy et de ses réformes, vous l’avez mis en garde en disant, « Attention, les réformes c’est bien mais elles peuvent avoir un double tranchant et des conséquences fâcheuses. » Qu’est-ce que vous vouliez dire et comment doit-il le prendre ?

Because the word “reform” can mean almost anything. Its meaning is in the eyes of the beholder. If the reform is designed to increase consumer welfare – and that is what most loosening of economic regulation is all about – that’s very good for consumers, and for the sides of our beings that are consumers or investors. But we must also pay attention to the side of our beings that are employees that seek a degree of security in our world, that want to ensure that our world outside the economic sphere has meaning and value. Economics can not necessarily tell us how to do this. Economic reforms that go by the title of “liberalization” don’t necessarily generate more security for us in these other aspects of our lives. So my warning is in terms of what’s happening in America. We have a very liberalized economy. It’s almost cowboy capitalism. Anything goes. Employers can fire people at will. We have had a great deal of economic growth. Our stock market has surged. Consumers can go to Wal-Mart and find a world of choice. But Americans are very insecure, economically speaking. The medium wage today, adjusted for inflation, is actually below what it was in 1990. And, again, adjusted for inflation, only slightly above what it was in 1970. Most of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the top one percent. Indeed, the latest data suggests that the top 1% of Americans are now gaining about 22% of total national income. The entire bottom half of America put together takes home about 12.6% of national income. We haven’t seen that degree of inequality – let alone insecurity – in 70 or 100 years.

Ulysse Gosset – D’où les risques…

Stéphanie Antoine – Vous proposez de supprimer l’impôt sur les sociétés. Vous dites qu’il est inefficace : vous pouvez vous expliquer pourquoi il existe absolument partout ? Pourquoi persiste-t-il s’il est si mauvais ?

Corporate income taxes are based upon the legal fiction that corporations are people. That corporations somehow pay something that people don’t pay. But, ultimately, people pay taxes. Corporations don’t. Corporate income tax is actually paid, indirectly, by shareholders, and to some extent by employees, and even, to some extent, by consumers. So I say let’s get rid of it. If we want to tax shareholders directly to make up the difference let’s do so. But, by clinging to the fiction that corporations are people and that they pay taxes, we are also clinging to a lot of other fictions that lead – at least in the United States – to the notion that corporations are citizens and therefore, by virtue of the no taxation without representation principle, are entitled to be represented and heard in our democratic process.

The other problem with corporate income tax is that it’s easy for companies to simply file pieces of paper in tax havens like the Netherlands Antilles or Bermuda, and thereby avoid it. If it were people that were taxed – shareholders, for instance – instead, such avoidance would be much more difficult.

Stéphanie Antoine – Il me semble que sous Clinton vous étiez favorable à une responsabilité sociétale des entreprises. Est-ce que c’est un constat d’échec qui fait qu’aujourd’hui vous n’y êtes plus du tout favorable ?

Well, let me once again distinguish explanation and what might be called a normative or prescriptive view of the world. I would love it if corporations were more socially responsible, personally. I did fight for it when I was Secretary of Labor. But what I learned was a very sobering lesson. The direction we’re going in, in terms of what I call supercapitalism does not permit corporations to sacrifice investor returns or good deals for consumers for the sake of some social ideals. It has to come from legislation or international agreements. Rules have got to be established. One encouraging event that occurred after I wrote the book was that a bunch of chief executives in America – understanding that much of what they were saying about becoming green companies was public relations, and understanding that something needed, and needs, to be done about global warming – went to Congress and said, “You must enact legislation that forces us to take global warming seriously.” That, to me, is very responsible. That is corporate CEOs recognizing that the very structure, the very nature of supercapitalism doesn’t allow them to take on those social responsibilities.

Stéphanie Antoine – Donc là ça a marché…

It worked to the extent those corporations and CEOs made the plea. It has not worked to the extent that Congress has taken any action yet. Now my hope, in terms of global warming, is that a new president, a Democrat, working with Congress - hopefully a Democratic Congress- will pass major legislation, will join Kyoto or at least modify it to make it appropriate, and will join with China, and we will have some sort of a world framework for dramatically reducing global warming.

Ulysse Gosset – Robert Reich, pour terminer, tout le monde, je crois, aux Etats-Unis est d’accord pour dire que quelque chose ne marche plus à Washington. « Le système est cassé » a dit Barack Obama. Le Républicain Mitt Romney l’a dit également. Est-ce que vous pensez que le prochain président réussira à réparer la machine ?

Well, having spent half of my adult life in Washington and the other half as a professor outside Washington – in other words having the opportunity to actually practice what I preach and then going  back and preaching what I practiced – I am not a cockeyed optimist. I think that our democracy is endangered. But I am also optimistic to the extent that I am a student of American history and I know that whenever, historically, Americans understand the nature of a challenge, they put ideology aside, get very, very practical, roll up their sleeves, and do what has to be done. I think we have a very good chance of getting our democracy back.

Ulysse Gosset – Et bien nous terminons l’émission sur ce message d’espoir. Merci d’être venu sur le plateau du Talk de Paris, merci à Stéphanie Antoine, et nous nous retrouvons bien entendu la semaine prochaine pour une nouvelle édition du Talk de Paris. A bientôt.