Parler de saint Thomas à Madame Taubira. Parler d'étalon-or à Mario Draghi

Attention, ouverture dans une nouvelle fenêtre. PDFImprimerEnvoyer

 

Le corps et l’esprit d’un même système

 

Un ami m’a entrepris avec passion, hier encore : il faut absolument, me dit-il, abolir la loi Taubira. Il faut lutter avant tout contre la théorie du genre.

Silence de ma part.

Scandalisé par ma tiédeur, il me demande des explications. Je lui répondis : « Pourquoi se focaliser sur une absurdité particulière, alors que le système libéral-libertaire est un ensemble et fait un tout ? Car une seule et même logique régit la finance libertaire et l’arbitraire moral dont vous vous plaignez tant. Ce sont le corps et l’esprit d’un seul et même système. »

Comment ne pas voir la solidarité entre d’une part la formidable fuite en avant du système financier qui a entrepris la plus massive et la plus risquée des expériences monétaires de l’histoire, et cela à l’échelle du monde, et d’autre part l’incroyable expérimentation sociale et idéologique dont la loi Taubira n’est qu’une des manifestations. Dans les deux cas, c’est la parole politique qui perd son sens et sa crédibilité. Dans les deux cas, c’est la même logique du toujours plus, pour masquer une pauvreté croissante. Dans les deux cas, c’est la même dévaluation des réalités sociales. Dans les deux c’est une course au néant, à l’hyperinflation dont nous sortirons ruinés et en partie détruits, mais néanmoins vivants.

Quantitative easing, taux d’intérêts négatifs, augmentation des impôts et des charges, dévaluation de sa monnaie : l’épargnant et l’entrepreneur ne sont pas mieux traités aujourd’hui que la famille traditionnelle. Ils sont confrontés à cette collusion malsaine entre le jacobinisme libertaire et la finance libertaire. Car il est dans la nature des idéologies de vivre en parasites d’un système qui crée de la valeur. Ainsi le jacobinisme socialiste français vit aux frais des entrepreneurs de notre pays. Ainsi, la finance libertaire vit elle, via le contrôle qu’elle exerce de fait sur les banques centrales, aux frais des contribuables en imposant un assouplissement monétaire qui mène à la destruction de la monnaie, de l’épargne et de la solvabilité des Etats. Ainsi les théories en tous genres vivent-elles en parasites de la famille éducative et structurante, elles laisseront derrière elles une population dés-éduquée, traumatisée et souffrant d'un syndrome d'indignité.

 

 

La logique de pouvoir derrière l’idéologie

 

J’aime faire référence au livre de John Searle, l’un des plus célèbres philosophes, ou réputés tels, aux Etats-Unis, La construction de la réalité sociale. L’intéressant n’est pas le mélange incohérent de relativisme et de matérialisme, aussi vieux que la solidarité curieuse de Gorgias et de Démocrite. L’intéressant, ce sont la preuve qu’il prétend donner de cet agrégat d’idées et le modèle dont il se sert. En résumé, il en va des objets sociaux, notamment du mariage, comme de la finance et de la monnaie.

De mémoire : la finance est entrée dans l’ère de la modernité et de la scientificité et de l’efficience absolue, le jour où l’Humanité, sortant des ténèbres du réalisme et de la « nature », a complètement détaché l’objet social « monnaie » de toute référence au réel « or » et « argent ». Le modèle de la finance postmoderne de marché court et revient tout au long de ce livre aussi suffisant qu’insuffisant.

J’aime beaucoup l’idée de « biocratie » chez Michel Foucault. La théorie du genre, l’absurdité taubirienne et autres fantaisies des objets sociaux construits en conversation de salon, ont une fonction précise, dont il n'est jamais question : la domination mentale, donc sociale, des parasites sur les producteurs. Ce sont des instruments de pouvoir, des outils de domination. On ne réfute pas des « idéologies » de ce genre. Idéologies, au sens marxiste du mot. On montre à quoi ça sert, c’est tout. Car il n'y a rien de plus en elles que des effets de sens par un jeu de langage et une volonté de pouvoir arbitraire.

Je m’arrête, mais non sans vous laisser méditer, ci-dessous, l’article du jeune Alan Greenspan (le futur président pendant vingt ans de la banque fédérale américaine, jusqu'en 2006). Ce texte a été écrit en 1966. Ce bref et génial article (dont je n’approuve pas la totalité), pose des questions fondamentales sur l’histoire financière et économique du monde depuis 1913  date de la fondation de la FED, banque centrale des USA. Car s’il est important de réfléchir sur la famille, d’un point de vue politique, il est peut-être plus décisif encore de réfléchir sur les fondamentaux de la monnaie, en ces temps troublés. 

 

GOLD AND ECONOMIC FREEDOM

by Alan Greenspan

 Readers maybe surprised when they see who wrote this essay. It’s about promoting gold as the key element of monetary organization, written in 1966. This essay is taken from “The Liberty Dollar Solution,” edited by Bernard von NotHaus.

 

Since the beginning of World War I, gold has been virtually the sole international standard of exchange.

Gold, having both artistic and functional uses and being relatively scarce, has always been considered a luxury good. It is durable, portable, homogeneous, divisible and, therefore, has significant advantages over all other media of exchange.

But if all goods and services were to be paid for in gold, large payments would be difficult to execute, and this would tend to limit the extent of a society's division of labor and specialization.

Thus, a logical extension of the creation of a medium of exchange is the development of a banking system and credit instruments (bank notes and deposits) that act as a substitute for, but are convertible into, gold.

A free banking system based on gold is able to extend and thus to create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production of the economy. Individual owners of gold are induced, by payments of interest, to deposit their gold in a bank (against which they can draw checks).

But since it is rarely the case that all depositors want to withdraw all their gold at the same time, the banker need keep only a fraction of his total deposits in gold as reserves. This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits (which means that he holds claims to gold rather than gold as security for his deposits). But the amount of loans which he can afford to make is not arbitrary: He has to gauge it in relation to his reserves and to the status of his investments.

When banks loan money to finance productive and profitable endeavors, the loans are paid off rapidly and bank credit continues to be generally available. But when the business ventures financed by bank credit are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon find that their loans outstanding are excessive relative to their gold reserves, and they begin to curtail new lending, usually by charging higher interest rates. This tends to restrict the financing of new ventures and requires the existing borrowers to improve their profitability before they can obtain credit for further expansion.

Thus, under the gold standard, a free banking system stands as the protector of an economy’s stability and balanced growth. When gold is accepted as the medium of exchange by most or all nations, an unhampered free international gold standard serves to foster a worldwide division of labor and the broadest international trade. Even though the units of exchange (the dollar, the pound, the franc, etc.) differ from country to country, when all are defined in terms of gold, the economies of the different countries act as one - so long as there are no restraints on trade or on the movement of capital.

Credit, interest rates and prices tend to follow similar patterns in all countries. For example, if banks in one country extend credit too liberally, interest rates in that country will tend to fall, inducing depositors to shift their gold to higher-interest-paying banks in other countries. This will immediately cause a shortage of bank reserves in the "easy money" country, inducing tighter credit standards and a return to competitively higher interest rates again.

A fully free banking system and fully consistent gold standard have not as yet been achieved. But prior to World War I, the banking system in the United States (and in most of the world) was based on gold, and even though governments intervened occasionally, banking was more free than controlled.

Periodically, as a result of overly rapid credit expansion, banks became loaned up to the limit of their gold reserves, interest rates rose sharply, new credit was cut off and the economy went into a sharp, but short-lived, recession. (Compared with the depressions of 1920 and 1932, the pre-World War I business declines were mild indeed.)

It was limited gold reserves that stopped the unbalanced expansions of business activity, before they could develop into the post-World War I type of disaster. The readjustment periods were short and the economies quickly re-established a sound basis to resume expansion.

But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline - argued economic interventionists - why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely -

it was claimed - there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913. It consisted of 12 regional Federal Reserve banks nominally owned by private bankers, but, in fact, government sponsored, controlled and supported. Credit extended by these banks is in practice (though not legally) backed by the taxing power of the federal government.

Technically, we remained on the gold standard; individuals were still free to own gold, and gold continued to be used as bank reserves. But now, in addition to gold, credit extended by the Federal Reserve banks ("paper" reserves) could serve as legal tender to pay depositors. When business in the United States underwent a mild contraction in 1927, the Federal Reserve created more paper reserves in the hope of forestalling any possible bank reserve shortage.

More disastrous, however, was the Federal Reserve's attempt to assist Great Britain, who had been losing gold to us because the Bank of England refused to allow interest rates to rise when market forces dictated (it was politically unpalatable). The reasoning of the authorities involved was as follows: If the Federal Reserve pumped excessive paper reserves into American banks, interest rates in the United States would fall to a level comparable with those Great Britain; this would act to stop Britain's gold loss and avoid the political embarrassment of having to raise interest rates.

The "Fed" succeeded: it stopped the gold loss, but it nearly destroyed the economies of the world in the process. The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the stock market - triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Federal Reserve officials attempted to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: By 1929 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence.

As a result, the American economy collapsed. Great Britain fared even worse, and rather than absorb the full consequences of her previous folly, she abandoned the gold standard completely in 1931, tearing asunder what remained of the fabric of confidence and inducing a worldwide series of bank failures. The world economies plunged into the Great Depression of the 1930’s.

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold.

If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists’ tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists’ antagonism toward the gold standard.

 

Regards,

Alan Greenspan for The Daily Reckoning

 

Editor’s Note: Alan Greenspan was chairman of the Federal Reserve and conductor of the world’s greatest experiment in paper money.

 

C'est un sujet que j'ai traité dans mon livre de philosophie de l'économie, Philosophie de la prospérité. Marché et solidarité, Economica, 1994, ch.4.

                                             

Ajouter un Commentaire


Code de sécurité
Rafraîchir

Nouveauté


La force de la liberté
La force de la liberté
€18.00

Evénements

Aucun événement

Restez au courant !

Nom:
Mail:

Sites partenaires

Bannière