By Stephen Linaweaver
Published November 02, 2009

http://greenbiz.com/blog/2009/11/02/go-slow-stay-low-mantra-greener-economy

In another life, I was an educator for Save the Bay in Oakland, Calif.

With the humdrum of finance, technology, and transportation whirring around and above us, we spent our days with scores of middle schoolers, teaching them to paddle canoes and absorb the natural world around them for the first time. The most difficult part was to teach them to get into, and out of, the canoes without tipping them.

“Go slow, stay low” was the mantra. It worked for most, but not for all. Inevitably there would be a few life vest-wearing, mud-covered students waist high in the waters of the bay before class was over.

Canoes, like economies, are more stable moving steadily forward than still. As firms look ahead to 2010 and finalize their strategic planning and budgeting processes, they are asking themselves. “Will the economy return to its ‘normal’ growth patterns? What share of the market will we retain if it does?”

This past Thursday’s GDP data sent the Dow soaring. Twelve hours later it plunged on weak consumerspending figures.

Where is the economy going?

This “post-recession,” still-life economy is very similar to that tippy, stationary canoe, and most companies would do well to pay heed to the advice given to 8th graders on Save the Bay trips. There are three reasons the economy will not return to its former state, especially in the U.S. The first is practical, the second behavioral, and the third theoretical. They are all sustainability related.

Practical

Firstly, there are practical reasons for a slow in growth that will have an impact on companies. It does not have to do with the crash in the housing market, although that rationale has been much discussed, and over-hyped. Taking GDP as the measure of economic growth in the United States, residential investment only accounts for 4 percent of GDP.

Even at the height of pre-crash euphoria it was just 6 percent. By comparison, personal consumption, that holy grail of “consumer spending” makes up 70 percent of the U.S. GDP. That is astounding: Consumption of stuff — goods and services — makes up 70 percent of the U.S. economy.

That figure was previously lower — 60 percent at the start of the 1950s. It is also lower in other countries: U.K.: 64 percent, Japan: 58 percent, Canada: 55 percent (2003 figures). In China, that figure is 36 percent (Note to reader: if your company is not looking for retail space in China, it will be). What does this mean? It means that the U.S. GDP is overly reliant on consumer spending. And now the money that was once being spent is being saved.

According to The Economist Special Report on the Economy, the household saving rate went from just 2.7 percent between 2002 and 2007 (remember the post 9-11 advice from your then-president, “Go out shopping”?) to 5 percent in the second quarter of this year.

Not a big deal you say? Each increase in savings by one percentage point reduces annual spending by $109 billion. A savings rate of 8 percent would pull $545 billion out of the economy.

Not possible you say? The U.S. savings rate was 8 percent in much of the 1960s and 1970s. Those are dollars pulled directly from Main Street, like a bad Laurel and Hardy joke where a dollar bill on a string is yanked unexpectedly before it can be picked up. This is good for the long-term sustainability of the country and future generations, but it can be a short-term challenge for thousands of companies that make superfluous stuff under a model of planned, or even unplanned, obsolescence.

A savings rate of 13 percent would leave the U.S. economy with a $1.1 trillion gap to fill. The total U.S. GDP in 2008, it should be noted, was “just” $14 trillion (World Bank, October 2009). And 13 percent is in no way outside the realm of the possible. Germany had a 10 percent savings rate in 2006, France 12 percent (OECD). China? An extraordinary 50 percent.

Scarred by the recent recession and jittery about a jobless recovery, the question is not will Americans save more, but how much more will Americans save, and how high will that savings rate reach. So for practical reasons, the economy will not return to its former state, and companies need to recognize this.

Behavioral

Secondly, “he who dies with the most toys wins” is soooooo 1990s.

Americans are beginning to come to terms with a culture of overconsumption. The prospect of more stuff is not seen as attractive as it once was, and U.S. citizens are rethinking the informal contract they have with companies. They expect more from them in terms of quality and durability and environmental safety.

“More is better” has been replaced by quality of life. It is not by accident that even Walmart’s slogan has changed from “Everyday Low Prices” to “Save Money. Live Better.”

The concept of America as a wasteful, over-consumptive society is not new.This was well chronicled in the documentary “Affluenza” in 1997, which described excessive consumption and its effects as almost a disease. Other magazine articles and books have also covered this ground. But the topic is now making stronger inroads into popular culture: “The Story of Stuff,” “Wall-E,” the shrinking size of homes, decrease in the number of cars per family, and the fact that you could fit three Priuses into one Hummer. The next generation in the bull’s eye of Madison Avenue’s scope — millennials — sees value not in what they have, but in the connections they make, in their degree of helpfulness, in the richness of their experiences.

Values are shifting — a long time in the making, but they are shifting:

“All the legislation in the world can’t fix what is wrong with America. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.”

That phrase was not uttered at a San Francisco book reading or on “This American Life.” It was spoken, extraordinarily, and publicly, in the Oval Office. Not by Obama or by Bush the Second. Jimmy Carter made that statement in a 30-minute televised address he gave to the nation in July 1979, 30 years ago this past summer.

Astute readers will note that nothing much changed after Carter gave that speech 30 years ago. So if nothing changed then, why should we expect anything to change now?

Because when Jimmy Carter made that speech it was the end of an era, the sunset of his presidency, which was followed by Reaganomics and Thatcherism, mass de-regulation, a decrease in the marginal tax rate of the highest incomes in the U.S. from 50 percent to 28 percent, the heyday of Gordon Gecko and “Greed is Good” on Wall Street, and an attempt to use high-octane capitalism as way to vanquish our monolithic enemy: the Soviet bloc countries.

In 2009, we are under very different circumstances.

We are at the beginning of a political era, facing a long-lasting recession, a backlash against greed and supply-side economics, the potential for an increase in the marginal tax rate, a diffuse enemy not responsive to capitalism’s successes or excesses, and an environmental challenge that cannot be swept away like Carter’s energy policy was after gas prices dropped in the late ’70s.

Americans will still consume, but in different ways.

Look to Europe for cues. Enter more leisure time, healthfulness, quality and valued family time. Exit the Escalade,
Evian and anything that smacks of materialism without meaning. Companies that think, “We have heard this story before,” need to take a harder look at the unique confluence of trends we currently face. There will be ample opportunities, but not in the places you last looked.

Theoretical

GDP is a very poor measure of overall well-being and quality of life. We know this. Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, Nicholas Stern, and a Who’s Who of economists commissioned by the French Government are currently trying to figure out a better measure of economic performance and social progress. In the meantime, GDP is the de-facto measurement of economic growth and one where we have sufficient data. Companies have enjoyed consistent GDP growth over the past century and that has generated ample wealth generation for individuals and consistent success for corporations.

One of the problems with GDP, however, is that the economy churns within the confines of a closed-loop system, otherwise known as the planet. This is not news to environmentalists or social scientists, but it always seems to surprise economists. Kenneth Boulding, with “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth” in 1966, and Stuart Brand, with the photo of Earth from space on the first Whole Earth Catalog in 1968, did a brilliant job of trying to wake us up to this reality. That was over 40 years ago, and we are only now beginning to recognize the limits of this closed-loop system, in terms of resource supply and pollution sink capacity.

Any entity within a closed loop system cannot grow infinitely. By comparison, let’s look at the growth patterns of a young male and the U.S. GDP. Both grow within a bounded system.

Average male height, age 2 (36 inches) to 20 (70 inches), 50th percentile, Center for Disease Control (pdf).

U.S. GDP, 1940-2005, $ Billions, swivel.com.

Even to the untrained eye, there appears to be a difference. The concept of limited resources has been debunked time and time again — human ingenuity, technology, and price signals all step in to keep us plowing forward. But it appears that the Earth’s ability as a sink, and the prospect of climate changing as the sink reaches its limit, may be the first indicator that growth cannot go on forever.

Any entity within a closed-loop system that grows without bounds would be the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine. Herman Daly’s “Steady-State Economics” taught us this in 1977, two years before Carter made his speech.

Theoretically, the economy cannot maintain its former growth rates permanently. Placing GDP within the context of the CDC growth chart, it is hard to know if we are a 4 year-old, or a teenager nearing our adult height. My money is on the latter.

Due to the practical, behavioral, and theoretical rationales laid out above, the growth economy as we knew it may be a relic of history. Our current jobless recovery could become a growthless “recovery.” Companies with executives holed up in board rooms, contemplating 2010 forecasts and strategies, need to consider what their businesses will look like in an era of moderate to no growth.

This is not an altogether bad thing.

Companies will continue to add value through goods and services, and citizens will benefit. Some companies who think ahead, who thoughtfully evaluate the scenarios they face and their current capabilities, or lack thereof, and who rethink their business models and their contracts with their consumers — they will benefit substantially. Others
will slip off the S&P 500 without a sound. Sustainability, at a macro level, will be strengthened.

Economies, like sitting canoes, are tippy. Stay low and go slow.

Stephen Linaweaver is associate principal at GreenOrder, an LRN Company. GreenOrder is a strategy and management consulting firm that, since 2000, has helped leading companies turn environmental innovation into business value.

Images CC licensed by Flickr users jonrawlinson, Robert S. Donovan and anoldent.

A special report on the world economy

Oct 1st 2009

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14530093

The world economy is recovering from financial disaster. But it will not return to normal as we know it, says Simon Cox.

NEWPORT BEACH, California, is not a bad place to contemplate the future of the world economy. Its information office
promises nine miles of pristine sand, fine dining for devoted epicureans and an atmosphere of laid-back sophistication. Yet students of economic turmoil will find their subject matter conveniently close to hand.

California’s unemployment rate has doubled to 12.2% since the start of 2008. Saddled with the worst credit rating in
the country, the “Golden State” is cutting spending on schools, prisons and health care for the elderly, as well as closing parks and laying off staff for three days a month. It will pay its workers a day late at the end of the fiscal year so that the expense will show up in next year’s budget. Financial shenanigans are not the sole province of the banking industry.

Newport Beach is also the home of Pimco, the biggest bond manager in the world, which handles $840 billion on behalf of pension funds, universities and other clients. In May the company held its annual “Secular Forum”, in which it tries to peer five years into the economic future. After two days of rumination, Pimco’s laid-back sophisticates concluded that the financial markets may well “revert to mean”, which is a statistician’s way of saying that what comes down must go up. But the next five years will not resemble the five preceding the crisis. Not every change wrought by the financial breakdown will be reversed. The world economy is fitfully getting back to normal, but it will be a “new normal”.

That phrase has caught on, even if people disagree about what it means. In the new normal, as defined by Pimco’s CEO, Mohamed El-Erian, growth will be subdued and unemployment will remain high. “The banking system will be a shadow of its former self,” and the securitisation markets, which buy and sell marketable bundles of debt, will presumably be a shadow of a shadow. Finance will be costlier and investment weak, so the stock of physical capital, on which prosperity depends, will erode.

The crisis invited a forceful government entry into several of capitalism’s inner sanctums, such as banking, American carmaking and the commercial-paper market. Mr El-Erian worries that the state may overstay its welcome. In addition, national exchequers may start to feel some measure of the fiscal strain now hobbling California. America’s Treasury, in particular, must demonstrate that it is still a “responsible shepherd of other countries’ savings”.

The notion of a “new normal” is convincing, even if you do not agree with every particular. But some forecasters now harbour higher expectations. They think the economy will bounce back to its old self, almost as if nothing had happened. They draw inspiration from the work of the late Milton Friedman, who showed that in America deep recessions are generally followed by strong recoveries. He likened the economy to a piece of string stretched taut on a board. The more forcefully the string is plucked, the more sharply it snaps back.

Friedman’s piece of string represents the demand side of the economy: the sum of spending by households, firms, foreigners and the government. The rigid board symbolises the supply side. When spending is strong enough, the economy’s resources are fully employed, allowing it to realise its full potential. As the workforce grows, capital accumulates and technology advances, this limit expands over time.
String theory

In a recession demand falls short of supply, leaving a sorry trail of unemployed workers, shuttered factories and unexploited innovations. But when the recovery arrives, Friedman suggested, it is all the more forceful because these resources have been lying idle, waiting to be brought back into production. The economy can grow faster than normal for a period until it reaches the point where it would have been without the crisis, when it reaches its full potential again (see chart 1, scenario 1).

Friedman’s story is heartening, but it can come unstuck in two ways. If the shortfall in demand persists it can do lasting damage to supply, reducing the level of potential output (scenario 2) or even its rate of growth (scenario 3). If so, the economy will never recoup its losses, even after spending picks up again.

Why should a swing in spending do such lasting harm? In a recession firms shed labour and mothball capital. If workers are left on the shelf too long, their skills will atrophy and their ties to the world of work will weaken.

When spending revives, the recovery will leave them behind. Output per worker may get back to normal, but the rate of employment will not.

Something similar can happen to the economy’s assembly lines, computer terminals and office blocks. If demand remains weak, firms will stop adding to this stock of capital and may scrap some of it. Capital will shrink to fit a lower level of activity. Moreover, if the financial system remains in disrepair, savings will flow haltingly to companies and the cost of capital will rise. Firms will therefore use less of it per unit of output.

The result is a lower ceiling on production. In the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook, its researchers count the cost of 88 banking crises over the past four decades. They find that, on average, seven years after a bust an economy’s level of output was almost 10% below where it would have been without the crisis.

This is an alarming gap. If replicated in the years to come, it would blight the lives of the unemployed, diminish the fortunes of those in work and make the public debt harder to sustain. But even worse scenarios are possible. A financial breakdown could do lasting damage to the growth in potential output as well as to its level. Even when the economy begins to expand, it may not regain the same pace as before.

Financial crises can pose such a threat to national incomes because of the way they erode national wealth. From the start of 2008 to the spring of this year the crisis knocked $30 trillion off the value of global shares and $11 trillion off the value of homes, according to Goldman Sachs, an investment bank. At their worst, these losses amounted to about 75% of world GDP. But despite their enormous scale, it is not immediately obvious why these losses should cause a lasting decline in economic activity. Natural disasters also wipe out wealth by destroying buildings, possessions and infrastructure, but the economy rarely slows in their aftermath. On the contrary, output often picks up during a period of reconstruction. Why should a financial disaster be any different?

The answer lies on the other side of the balance-sheet. Before the crisis the overpriced assets held by banks and households were accompanied by vast debts. After the crisis their assets were shattered but their liabilities remained standing. As Irving Fisher, a scholar of the Depression, pointed out, “overinvestment and overspeculation…would have far less serious results were they not conducted with borrowed money.”

Japan found this out to its cost in the 1990s after the bursting of a spectacular bubble in property and stock prices. For a “lost decade” from 1992 the economy stagnated, never recovering the growth rates posted in the 1980s.

Richard Koo of the Nomura Research Institute in Tokyo calls Japan’s ordeal a “balance-sheet recession”.

The typical post-war recession begins when the flow of spending in the economy puts a strain on its resources, forcing prices upwards. Central banks raise interest rates to slow spending to a more sustainable pace. Once inflation has subsided, the authorities are free to turn the taps back on.

But in a “balance-sheet recession”, what must be corrected is not a flow but a stock. After the bubble burst, Japan’s companies were left with liabilities that far exceeded their assets. Rather than file for bankruptcy, they set about paying down their stock of debt to a manageable level. This was a protracted slog which, by Mr Koo’s reckoning, did not finish until 2005. In the meantime Japan’s economy stagnated. By 2002 its output was almost 23% below its pre-crisis trajectory.

Since Pimco’s forum concluded in May, the world economy has palpably improved. In many ways the new normal is beginning to look a lot like the old, vindicating Friedman’s plucking model. China is outpacing expectations.

Goldman Sachs is making hay. The premium banks must pay to borrow overnight from each other is now below 0.25%, the level Alan Greenspan, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve, once described as “normal”. Companies in Europe and America are selling bonds at a furious pace. A few months ago financial newspapers were debating the future of capitalism. Now they are merely discussing the future of capital requirements. Shock has given way to relief.
The persistence of debt

But the relief is likely to be short-lived. Just over a year ago, the day Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, the world economy fell off a precipice. When you are falling, you do not look up. Only when you hit bottom can you stop and contemplate the cliff you must now climb.

This special report will argue that although a “new normal” for the world economy is now in sight, it will be different from the old normal in a number of ways. Demand in rich countries will remain weak and emerging economies will not be able to compensate. The report will explain why many governments will have to keep their stimulus packages going for longer than expected, or face entrenched unemployment that will permanently lower their economic potential. Public debt will rise so that private debt can fall. The banks, the report will show, will remain cautious about lending again, which will slow up the recovery but also make companies more careful about their investment; and the securitisation markets that became so fashionable during the boom will recede, though not disappear altogether.

A persistent shortfall in demand will weigh on supply. By the time this crisis is over, as many as 25m people may have lost their jobs in the 30 rich countries that belong to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The danger is that several million may never regain them. The mobilisation of capital will be fitful as the financial system copes with past mistakes and impending regulation. The travails of finance, in turn, may prevent the recovering economy from backing and exploiting innovations.

Like Japan’s bubble years, the years that led to the global financial crisis have left a heavy legacy of debt on the balance-sheets of banks and households, especially in Britain and America. It is this legacy that allows past losses to depress future gains. Fisher, again, put it best: “I fancy that over-confidence seldom does any great harm except when, as, and if, it beguiles its victims into debt.” There is no better example of that than American consumers.

Rabu, 11 November 2009 | 03:15 WIB

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/11/11/03154966/bertahan.di.jakarta.dengan.mengandalkan.jaringan.kedaerahan

Bagaimana pedagang kecil mampu bertahan di tengah rimba persaingan kota Jakarta yang disesaki pemodal besar? Ketika Jakarta tampak kurang memberikan tempat buat mereka, nyatanya usaha orang-orang kecil yang dirintis dari desa itu tidak mudah tersingkir. Ternyata, kunci ”pertahanan hidup” mereka adalah kemampuan membangun jaringan usaha yang tersambung dari desa ke kota.

Untuk memelihara jaringan itu, mereka memanfaatkan tali persaudaraan atau tali kekerabatan sedesa, sekecamatan, atau sekabupaten. Sentimen kedaerahan itu mampu menjaga kepercayaan di dalam jaringan. Begitulah yang dilakukan kakak beradik, Casih (40) dan Suberi (38), bersama jaringannya. Kedua perempuan asal Cirebon ini tinggal di rumah kontrakan di kawasan pintu air Pejompongan, Jakarta Pusat.

Sehari-hari, keduanya berkeliling menjajakan perlengkapan dapur dan perlengkapan rumah tangga lainnya. Sebagian barang itu rata-rata berbahan bambu atau kayu seperti bakul, kukusan, tampah, dan kipas sate. Sebagian lagi berbahan plastik, kawat, dan seng seperti penggorengan, serokan, sodet, parutan, sendok sayur, sendok nasi, sikat kamar mandi, dan sapu.

Sudah belasan tahun mereka berdagang keliling menyusuri jalan-jalan berdebu di Jakarta.

Setiap hari, setelah mengambil barang dagangan di Pasar Jatinegara, Jakarta Timur, keduanya berkeliling menggendong barang dagangan seberat sekitar 25 kilogram. ”Setiap hari kami berangkat pukul 08.00. Pulang pukul 18.00,” ujar Suberi saat ditemui sedang beristirahat di amben kayu, di salah satu deretan lapak pedagang yang kosong di Pasar Palmerah, Jakarta Barat, beberapa waktu lalu.

Barang dagangan diambil dari seorang grosir yang tak lain adalah bibi mereka. Sang bibi mendapat barang-barang itu dari para perajin di Cirebon. Barang dikirim ke Jakarta bila jumlahnya minimal sudah satu truk. Pembayarannya dilakukan belakangan setelah barang laku.

Peran sang bibi cukup dominan. Menurut keduanya, bibinya juga yang menyewakan rumah buat mereka tinggal selama di Jakarta. ”Jadi kami tinggal menghuni dan bekerja,” tutur Suberi. Di Jakarta, lanjut Casih, mereka tinggal di rumah kontrakan berdinding tripleks.

Dari Pejompongan, mereka mengambil barang yang dipusatkan di Jatinegara. Dari situlah mereka berkeliling menjajakan barang-barang perlengkapan rumah tangga ke berbagai wilayah, seperti Cipulir, Kebon Nanas, Rawa Belong, sampai Sukabumi Ilir, Jakbar. Hasilnya, setiap hari mereka memperoleh pendapatan bersih Rp 25.000. ”Umumnya kami sanggup menjual perabotan senilai total Rp 200.000. Setelah dipotong ongkos makan dan minum, kami masih bisa membawa uang sekitar Rp 25.000,” papar Casih.

Menurut mereka, meski barang-barang plastik pengganti barang anyaman bambu membanjiri pasar pada awal tahun 2000-an, usaha mereka tidak terganggu. Sebab, pasar utama mereka adalah ibu-ibu rumah tangga yang masih menganggap makanan yang dimasak menggunakan perabotan bambu lebih sedap dibanding perabot berbahan plastik. Selain itu, ujar Casih, perabotan bambu lebih ramah lingkungan dibanding barang-barang produk plastik.

Sudah tertata

Pola dagang yang mengandalkan jaringan serupa juga dilakukan Sutrisno (62) dan Suratmi (45), pasangan suami-istri asal Wonogiri yang menjual jamu keliling. Dibanding jaringan Cirebon, jaringan Wonogiri memang sudah jauh lebih lama, lebih kuat, dan lebih luas. Jaringan mereka tidak hanya sebatas kerabat dan saudara, tetapi sudah tertata dalam fungsi-fungsi, seperti fungsi pemodal, pemasok, dan penjual. Jaringan produk mereka yang sudah sangat kuat menggurita di Jakarta adalah jamu tradisional, bakso, dan mi ayam.

Sutrisno menjelaskan, ada pembagian fungsi antara para petani tanaman bahan jamu di desa, para pengelola perusahaan angkutan asal Wonogiri, dan pedagang jamu di kota. Mereka masing-masing memiliki loyalitas tinggi terhadap jaringannya.

Sutrisno-Suratmi yang sudah berdagang jamu di Pasar Palmerah sejak tahun 1967 ini mengaku memperoleh 90 persen bahan mentah jamu dari desa mereka. ”Cuma gula jawa, buah asam, dan telur saja yang kami beli di Jakarta. Lainnya harus dari Wonogiri,” ucap Sutrisno.

Jaringan bisnis para pengusaha kecil Cirebon dan Wonogiri hanyalah sebagian dari jaringan bisnis pengusaha kecil dari beberapa daerah yang mengepung Jakarta. Setiap daerah memiliki tawaran produk dan jasa yang khas daerah.

Contohnya, orang Tegal dikenal dengan wartegnya, orang-orang Padang dengan restoran padangnya, orang-orang Kuningan dengan soto mi pikulan, orang-orang Madura dengan sate ayamnya.

Dengan pola usaha jaringan kedaerahan itu, warga desa yang menjadi pedagang kecil di Jakarta itu mampu membangun hidup, bahkan mampu menyekolahkan anak-anak mereka sampai ke perguruan tinggi. (WINDORO ADI).

Par Alex Lantier
9 novembre 2009

http://www.wsws.org/francais/News/2009/nov2009/fran-n09.shtml

Avec le renvoi en correctionnelle de l’ancien président Jacques Chirac, qui ouvre la voie au tout premier procès d’un président français, les enquêtes sur les scandales politico-financiers de France se sont développées en une crise gouvernementale de grande ampleur. Le renvoi en correctionnelle de Chirac fait suite à la condamnation à un an de prison ferme de l’ancien ministre de l’Intérieur Charles Pasqua dans le scandale des ventes d’armes à l’Angola et au procès qui a duré un mois de l’ancien premier ministre Dominique de Villepin dans l’affaire Clearstream.

Tandis que ces dirigeants politiques risquent la prison et la disgrâce publique, le décor est planté pour des batailles juridiques longues qui menacent de discréditer l’ensemble de l’establishment politique au point de « faire sauter vingt fois la République », pour reprendre les termes, avant son procès de 2001, du dirigeant d’une entreprise pétrolière, Alfred Sirven, reconnu coupable.

Le renvoi en correctionnelle d’un ancien chef d’Etat n’est qu’un aspect de la situation explosive actuelle. Pasqua a réagi à sa condamnation en déclarant que Chirac, Edouard Balladur (allié pour un temps de l’actuel président Nicolas Sarkozy) et feu le dirigeant du Parti socialiste et président de 1981 à 1995 François Mitterrand étaient au courant de ses agissements. Pasqua a demandé que soit levé le secret défense pour toutes les enquêtes concernant les scandales politico-financiers.

Ces scandales qui ont émergé à la fin des années 1980 et 1990, concernent une série de systèmes de pots-de-vin massifs. Ils étaient le reflet des contradictions croissantes au sein de l’appareil politique français de l’après-guerre, entre les grandes entreprises industrielles clé nationalisées et la course des chefs d’entreprises et des politiciens d’amasser des fortunes toujours plus importantes et de financer des partis de droite impopulaires; et entre l’impérialisme français et ses concurrents, notamment les Etats-Unis, qui exerçaient une pression toujours plus grande sur la France.

Par ces scandales on entend: L’affaire Elf, impliquant des pots-de-vin payés au début des années 1990 par l’entreprise pétrolière Elf (devenue Total) à des hommes d’affaire et des politiciens français ainsi qu’à des dirigeants africains pro-français; le scandale de l’Angolagate au cours duquel l’argent provenant des ventes d’armes à l’Angola, de 1993 à 1998, est allé sous forme de pots-de-vin, dans les poches de politiciens et de personnalités de la mafia; l’affaire des frégates de Taïwan, où les prix gonflés payés par Taïwan pour ces frégates françaises au début des années 1990 firent la fortune de personnalités françaises et taïwanaises et ont été dissimulés par une série de meurtres et de suicides suspects; et le scandale des « emplois fictifs » au cours duquel la ville de Paris a indûment payé des représentants du parti de Jacques Chirac, alors maire de Paris, au coeur d’un système de fraude électorale et d’abus d’influence par des entreprises du bâtiment.

Le procès Clearstream contre Villepin est parti d’allégations de Sarkozy selon lesquelles Villepin aurait essayé de manipuler les enquêtes sur les affaires politico-financières dans le but de le calomnier.

Jusqu’à présent, les enquêtes approfondies sur ces affaires ont été bloquées et le peu de personnes reconnues coupables ont écopé de peines légères. Aucun homme politique n’a été condamné dans le procès Elf de 2002-2003. Un dirigeant condamné de Elf, André Tarallo, a été libéré de prison après deux mois, sans avoir jamais payé son amende de 2 millions d’euros.

L’enquête sur les frégates de Taïwan a été stoppée par le recours répété au secret défense de divers gouvernements, de droite comme de gauche.

Sarkozy est venu au pouvoir en 2007, projetant de tirer parti de ces affaires contre les factions de ses rivaux dans l’entourage de Chirac. Parlant de l’affaire Clearstream, il avait prononcé ces fameuses paroles lors d’une réunion des dirigeants du Groupe Lagardère en 2005: «Il y aura du sang sur les murs. Lorsque je serai au pouvoir, on les pendra tous à des crocs de boucher. »

Sarkozy espérait aussi manipuler ces scandales à son avantage en mettant fin à toute autre enquête à la fin de son mandat présidentiel. En janvier 2009, il a annoncé la suppression du corps des juges d’instruction et qui entrera en vigueur l’année prochaine. Ce sont ces juges d’instruction qui ont enquêté sur ces scandales. Dans le climat politique crée par cette prise pour cible de Villepin par Sarkozy, le pouvoir judiciaire a réagi en intensifiant la crise. En condamnant Pasqua à une peine de prison ferme, il est allé au-delà de la peine requise par le Parquet. En renvoyant Chirac en correctionnelle, le pouvoir judiciaire pousse la campagne de Sarkozy à sa conclusion logique, à savoir un règlement de comptes au sein de l’establishment, et qui se joue au tribunal.

Cette lutte reflète les intérêts impérialistes puissants en jeu dans les changements de politique effectués par Sarkozy par rapport à son prédécesseur Chirac qui était au pouvoir de 1995 à 2007.

Les scandales politico-financiers des années 1990 provenaient de la poursuite de la politique étrangère française de tradition gaulliste, politique de semi-indépendance par rapport aux Etats-Unis, consistant notamment à maintenir une industrie de défense indépendante et à promouvoir l’influence française dans les anciennes colonies africaines du pays. En Angola, au Congo et dans d’autres pays africains, la France venait en aide à des régimes confrontés à des mouvements d’opposition soutenus par les Etats-Unis, dont le tristement célèbre régime de pouvoir Hutu qui perpétra le génocide rwandais de 1994. La création en 1999 de la grande entreprise de défense franco-allemande EADS représentait un défi implicite aux intérêts aérospatiaux américains et impliqua aussi la France dans des conflits industriels récurrents avec l’Allemagne.

En qualité de président, Chirac était généralement vu comme continuant la politique traditionnelle. En 2003, lui-même et le ministre des Affaires étrangères de l’époque Dominique de Villepin, s’étaient opposés à l’ONU à la course à la guerre contre l’Irak du gouvernement Bush et avaient organisé une sorte de coalition anti-américaine avec l’Allemagne et la Russie. Chirac avait aussi résisté à la pression d’intégrer la France dans la structure de commandement de l’Otan, qu’elle avait quittée en 1966 sous la présidence de Charles de Gaulle.

Chirac fut confronté à une résistance croissante de la classe ouvrière dans les dernières années de son mandat. L’échec du référendum sur la Constitution européenne en 2005 et les manifestations populaires de masse contre les attaques sociales de Chirac avaient provoqué au sein de la bourgeoisie une opposition au régime de Chirac et qui se regroupait autour de Sarkozy. Au même moment, la crise du système impérialiste mondial, représentée par les débâcles américaines en Irak et en Afghanistan, poussaient la bourgeoisie française à se rapprocher des Etats-Unis pour défendre ses propres intérêts impérialistes à l’étranger.

Après son élection en 2007, Sarkozy a abandonné la rhétorique gaulliste traditionnelle sur l’attraction de l’universalisme français et s’est appuyé sur un appel nationaliste et chauvin envers l’électorat néofasciste. En même temps il s’est tourné vers Washington en matière de politique étrangère. Il a promu la réintégration de la France dans l’OTAN et le soutien à la guerre en Irak et envoyé davantage de troupes en Afghanistan et dans le Golfe Persique. Il a aussi travaillé plus étroitement avec les syndicats, réussissant à imposer des attaques sociales plus importantes contre les travailleurs.

Le fait que ces questions n’ont quasiment pas suscité de débat lors de la campagne présidentielle de 2007, qui fut largement consacrée à la démagogie du tout sécuritaire tant par Sarkozy que par la candidate du Parti socialiste Ségolène Royal, témoigne de la profondeur de la décrépitude de la démocratie française.

Cela représente aussi un avertissement sérieux à la classe ouvrière sur les batailles judiciaires actuelles. Ces enquêtes et procès à motivation politique et soigneusement limités sont avant tout une tentative, en dehors des urnes, de régler des différends politiques au sein de la classe dirigeante et de dissimuler toute l’étendue de sa criminalité. De ce fait, ces enquêtes et procès ont un contenu social profondément antidémocratique et réactionnaire. Dans la mesure où cette lutte politique reste limitée à des batailles de factions au sein de la bourgeoisie, elles tendent inévitablement vers des arrangements réactionnaires aux dépens de la classe ouvrière, tant en France que dans les pays ciblés par l’impérialisme français.

Senin, 9 November 2009 | 03:18 WIB
Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa

http://cetak.kompas.com/read/xml/2009/11/09/03181388/membaca.prospek.pemulihan.ekonomi.as

Gejolak di pasar modal akhir-akhir ini membuat banyak kalangan bertanya-tanya akan kesinambungan pemulihan ekonomi Amerika Serikat. Ketidakpastian ini tentu saja berdampak negatif pada pasar modal Indonesia. Apakah harus khawatir pada prospek pemulihan ekonomi AS dan ekonomi kita?

Angka pertumbuhan ekonomi AS pada triwulan III 3,5 persen, berada di atas perkiraan para analis. Ini merupakan salah satu indikasi bahwa perekonomian AS mulai keluar dari resesi.

Akibatnya, indeks Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) pun naik lebih dari 2 persen pada hari data pertumbuhan ekonomi AS tersebut diumumkan.

Sebagian dari kita tentu berpikir inilah akhir tren penurunan saham di AS. Ke depan, saham di sana pasti terus memasuki tren kenaikan yang berkesinambungan.

Namun, pada Jumat (30/10) pasar modal AS justru mengalami koreksi tajam. Pada hari itu DJIA turun 2,51 persen.

Arah ekonomi AS

Ada banyak alasan yang sering dikemukakan para analis untuk menjelaskan kejatuhan kembali pasar saham AS pada 30 Oktober itu. Alasan tersebut antara lain keadaan sektor perbankan dianggap masih mengkhawatirkan.

Di samping itu, angka pengangguran masih tinggi, membuat sulit mengharapkan belanja rumah tangga akan terus mendorong pertumbuhan ekonomi.

Alasan lain, pertumbuhan positif yang terjadi pada triwulan III lalu adalah karena banyaknya stimulus dari pemerintah maupun dari bank sentral di sana.

Pendeknya, pemulihan yang sedang terjadi dalam perekonomian AS saat ini dianggap tidak berkesinambungan. Ekonomi AS akan segera terpuruk lagi.

Pendapat di atas tampak dapat meyakinkan pemain pasar, paling tidak pada Jumat (30/10). Namun, kita juga harus waspada karena pendapat yang diterima pasar dapat juga berubah dalam waktu yang tidak lama.

Menentukan arah perekonomian AS dari pergerakan harga saham maupun dari komentar analis sering membuat kita bingung.

Adakah alat untuk melihat arah perekonomian AS dengan lebih jernih? Salah satu perkakas yang dapat digunakan melihat arah perekonomian AS adalah coincident economic index (CEI) dan leading economic index (LEI).

CEI adalah indeks yang menunjukkan keadaan ekonomi pada suatu saat. CEI (versi Conference Board) disusun dengan menggunakan informasi tenaga kerja di sektor nonpertanian, pendapatan pribadi, produksi industri, serta penjualan sektor manufaktur dan perdagangan.

CEI yang naik menggambarkan aktivitas perekonomian yang sedang meningkat. CEI yang turun menggambarkan aktivitas perekonomian yang sebaliknya.

Adapun LEI adalah indeks yang menunjukkan prospek keadaan ekonomi dalam beberapa bulan ke depan. LEI disusun dengan menggunakan informasi upah di sektor manufaktur, klaim terhadap asuransi pengangguran, order baru di sektor manufaktur, pengiriman supplier, izin mendirikan bangunan, harga saham, suplai uang (M2), selisih suku bunga, dan indeks ekspektasi konsumen.

LEI yang turun menggambarkan prospek perekonomian yang memburuk. LEI yang naik menggambarkan prospek perekonomian yang membaik.

LEI mengalami penurunan sejak Agustus 2007 dan terus menurun tajam pada bulan-bulan berikutnya. Tren penurunan ini mengindikasikan prospek perburukan ekonomi AS. Prediksi perburukan ini mulai terealisasikan sejak Februari 2008, seperti yang ditunjuk-kan oleh jatuhnya CEI yang tajam sejak bulan tersebut.

Pada bulan-bulan berikutnya CEI mengalami penurunan amat tajam, yang menggambarkan semakin terpuruknya perekonomian AS ke dalam resesi.

Akan tetapi, LEI sudah mencapai titik terendah pada Maret 2009. Sejak itu, LEI mengalami kenaikan terus-menerus.

Sampai September 2009, LEI sudah naik enam kali berturut-turut. Kenaikan ini menggambarkan prospek ekonomi AS yang akan semakin membaik. Memang saat ini CEI belum meningkat tajam. Namun, melihat perilaku CEI (yang bergerak mendahului LEI) yang naik tajam, kenaikan CEI yang tajam tinggal soal waktu.

Artinya, ada indikasi proses pemulihan perekonomian AS akan lebih kuat dari yang dibayangkan sebagian ekonom.

Dalam beberapa puluh tahun terakhir, siklus bisnis perekonomian AS biasanya dapat berlangsung selama 10 tahun. Artinya, biasanya ekonomi AS mengalami ekspansi selama 10 tahun sebelum memasuki fase resesi lagi.

Salah satu fase ekspansi terpendek terjadi pada periode 2001 (akhir)-2007 (akhir) atau ekspansi selama sekitar enam tahun. Jadi, bila ekonomi AS memasuki fase ekspansi lagi, kita dapat mengharapkan ekspansinya akan terjadi selama enam tahun (terpendek) atau 10 tahun (terpanjang) ke depan.

Stimulus fiskal

Salah satu faktor yang memulihkan perekonomian AS saat ini adalah besarnya stimulus fiskal dan moneter yang diberikan oleh pemerintah dan bank sentral AS. Hal ini terlihat dari laju pertumbuhan uang (M0 maupun M1) yang positif.

Tampaknya, otoritas moneter AS tak mau mengulangi kesalahan tahun 1930-an. Salah satu faktor utama yang sering disalahkan membuat ekonomi AS terpuruk dalam dan terlalu lama pada krisis tahun 1930-an adalah kegagalan bank sentral AS menciptakan laju pertumbuhan uang yang positif.

Saat ini laju pertumbuhan uang M0 di AS lebih dari 100 persen, sedangkan laju pertumbuhan uang M1 berada pada kisaran 18 persen. Angka ini jauh lebih tinggi dibanding keadaan tahun 2001, ketika AS terpuruk ke dalam masa resesi, di mana laju pertumbuhan tertinggi M1 hanya pada kisaran 8 persen. Artinya, kini sudah cukup banyak uang yang dipompa ke sistem finansialnya untuk memicu pertumbuhan ekonominya.

Memang ada pandangan bahwa stimulus yang berlebihan akan menimbulkan kerentanan pada perekonomian AS. Namun, sering dilupakan bahwa proses pemulihan sulit dapat terjadi tanpa stimulus yang cukup.

Laju pertumbuhan uang yang positif memberikan harapan perekonomian AS tidak terpuruk sedalam dan selama krisis era 1930-an. Keberhasilan langkah kebijakan ini terlihat dari laju pertumbuhan ekonomi AS yang mulai positif lagi pada triwulan III-2009.

Keraguan akan kesinambungan pemulihan ekonomi di AS wajar timbul, mengingat ketika suatu perekonomian baru keluar dari masa resesi tidak otomatis semua sektor kinerjanya langsung menjadi baik. Perbaikan yang terjadi di perekonomian akan perlahan-lahan menyebar ke semua sektor.

Lonjakan penciptaan lapangan kerja tidak serta-merta terjadi dengan tajam di semua sektor secara bersamaan. Namun, bila keadaan perekonomian secara keseluruhan terus membaik, para pengusaha akan yakin pemulihan yang terjadi berkesinambungan. Dengan demikian, mereka mulai memperluas kapasitas produksinya, termasuk merekrut tenaga kerja baru.

Ekonomi Indonesia

Indonesia sendiri akan diuntungkan dengan perbaikan yang terjadi pada perekonomian AS. Biasanya perekonomian Indonesia dapat tumbuh dengan baik ketika ekonomi AS berekspansi. Data historis menunjukkan, siklus bisnis perekonomian Indonesia rata-rata berlangsung sepanjang tujuh tahun.

Artinya, ekonomi Indonesia mengalami ekspansi selama tujuh tahun sebelum jatuh ke masa resesi, yang biasanya berlangsung selama satu tahun.

Perhitungan posisi siklus bisnis yang dilakukan oleh Danareksa Research Institute menunjukkan, perekonomian kita memasuki fase ekspansi lagi sejak Maret 2009. Artinya, jika perilaku pelaku ekonomi kita tidak berubah, ada peluang cukup besar bagi ekonomi kita untuk terus berekspansi sampai tujuh tahun ke depan. Ekonomi kita akan terus berekspansi sampai 2016.

Diskusi di atas menunjukkan, proses pemulihan perekonomian AS tampaknya berkesinambungan. Prospek ekonomi Indonesia pun akan cerah dalam beberapa tahun mendatang. Dengan prospek ekonomi yang demikian, gejolak jangka pendek yang kini terjadi pada pasar saham global dan pasar saham kita tidak seharusnya membuat investor domestik ketakutan berlebihan.

Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa Chief Economist Danareksa Research Institute

By Andre Damon
7 November 2009

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/unem-n07.shtml

The US unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent in October, according to data released Friday by the Labor Department. This is only the second time official unemployment has reached double digits since the end of World War II. It is the highest level since early 1983.

The latest figures show the real basis for the “recovery” proclaimed by the Obama administration, which is accompanied by soaring unemployment, together with speedups and wage cuts. The unemployment figures come only one day after the release of figures showing that those who still have a job are doing more work for less money.

The unemployment rate, which is measured by a survey of households, shot up by 0.4 percentage points in October, far more than economists expected.

Non-farm payrolls, which are measured by a separate survey of employers, fell by 190,000. Economists had predicted an average of 175,000 job losses and a 0.1 percent rise in the unemployment rate. The survey households—which include the self-employed and incorporate a better measure of small businesses—showed much higher level of job losses: 558,000.

About 61,000 US manufacturing jobs were lost last month, bringing the total number of manufacturing jobs lost to 2.1 million since the recession began in December 2007. Retail trade dropped by 40,000 jobs, and the service sector as a whole lost 61,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate in Canada jumped 0.2 percentage points to 8.6 percent in October. The country lost 43,000 jobs last month, compared to the gain of 10,000 jobs expected by economists. Some 400,000 Canadian jobs have been eliminated since October 2008.

Since the start of the recession, 8.2 million US jobs been destroyed, bringing the number of unemployed people in the country to 15.7 million, a figure significantly larger than the populations of Cuba, Greece, or Sweden. Of this figure, 5.6 million, or 35.6 percent, were unemployed for 27 weeks or more.

The broader unemployment rate, which includes people who have either stopped looking for work or are working part-time involuntarily, rose even more sharply, hitting 17.5 percent. This is its highest rate on record and up 0.5 percentage points from September. The number of people who would like to take full-time jobs but can only find part-time work, or who had their hours cut from full- to part-time, has reached 9.3 million.

Economists responded to the data by revising upward their estimates for unemployment next year, with several predicting a peak of at least 11 percent. This would represent the highest unemployment level since World War II.

The last time unemployment passed 10 percent was during the recession of 1982-1983, when it peaked at 10.8 percent. Labor conditions for workers are, however, worse than they were during that recession. Over the past three decades, there has been a protracted campaign for “labor market flexibility,” which has resulted not only in employers’ ability to lay off workers at will, but also to quickly cut hours and impose speedups.

This was expressed in figures released Thursday by the Labor Department, which showed an increase in productivity of 9.5 percent at an annualized rate in the third quarter. Productivity is calculated as the amount of output generated per hour worked. Over the past six months, productivity has increased at the highest rate since 1961.

The sharp rise in productivity is due to the fact that workers are being forced to do more for less. Many employers are laying off part of their workforce and making those who still retain a job cover for those dismissed.

Obama responded to the figures released on Friday with a combination of indifference and palliatives. In a statement delivered at the White House, he stated, “Although it will take time and it will take patience, I am confident that our economy will recover. I’m confident that we’re moving in the right direction.”

Obama repeated the claim that the “stimulus” measures passed by his administration have “saved or created” one million jobs. This figure is based largely on overinflated assumptions about how many additional jobs would have been lost without the bill. The number of people actually employed by the federal government from Obama’s measures is minuscule.

Even if one grants the administration’s own figures, the jobs “created or saved” by the stimulus program amount to less than one eighth of the total jobs lost since the beginning of the recession.

Obama also signed an extension of unemployment benefits by up to 20 weeks in some states. In his speech, Obama said that the bill he signed into law would make unemployment benefits available for up to 700,000 more people. Unemployment payments average $300 per week, and were available for up to 33 weeks prior to the extension.

The bill also includes an extension of a tax credit for first-time homebuyers. These programs are intended as a palliative that does not in any way address the unemployment crisis.

To stress the fact that the administration is committed to cutting federal spending and reducing the deficit, Obama stated that the bill extending unemployment benefits was “deficit neutral.” “The bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for and so it is fiscally responsible,” he said.

The focus on federal cost-cutting, a theme that has been repeated by numerous administration officials over the past two weeks, comes after the government’s coffers have been opened up to the financial elite. The surging profits and bonuses at the largest banks are to be paid for by cuts in social spending.

Obama indicated that his administration was “looking at” additional measures, largely focused on tax cuts for corporations, supposedly to create jobs. The government has rejected additional stimulus measures.

Alan Krueger, chief economist at the Treasury Department, told reporters that there were no firm plans in the works. “I can’t comment on what’s being considered, or when what’s being considered might happen,” he said.

During his remarks, Obama also pledged “an aggressive agenda to promote exports and help American businesses sell their products around the world.” This statement refers to a key component of the government’s strategy to address the US budget deficit, in part through a devaluation of the dollar to make US exports cheaper and imports more expensive.

The linchpin of this policy, however, is the assault on wages, which is the driver of international “competitiveness.” Real wages in the United States have fallen at near-record rates so far this year, and the trend is set to continue.

The government itself spearheaded this attack through the forced bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler earlier this year, accompanied by the demand that auto workers accept a new round of concessions.

Earlier this week, Obama declared at a meeting of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board that he aimed to “create an environment in which business investment is triggered.” The main way this is to be done is by permanently reducing the wages and increasing the productivity of American workers.

For Obama and the corporate and financial elite that he represents, high unemployment is not unwanted—it is, rather, absolutely necessary.