This is a translation of Piketty’s latest post on his blog. It is important to listen to the opinion of one of the most important economists in the world and how he views the Trump Phenomenon.
You can find the original article here:
In less than two months, the US will have a new president. If Donald Trump wins, it would be a catastrophe for his country and for the world. Racist, vulgar, in love with himself and his fortune, he embodies what is worst in America. And the fact that Hillary Clinton had so much trouble leaving him behind in the polls concerns us all.
Trump's strategy is classic: it convinces the poor white voters, battered by globalization that their enemy is the poor black, the immigrant, the Mexican, the Muslim, and that everything will be better once the great white billionaire gets rid of them.
His strategy is to exacerbate racial and identity conflict so as to avoid the issue of class conflict, which would require him to explain his wealth. This predominance of ethnic divisions plays a central role in the history of the United States, and explains in large part the weakness of solidarity and of the American welfare state. Trump simply pushes this strategy to its limits, but with several major innovations.
First, it is based on an ideology of earned wealth and the sanctification of the market and private property, which reached record highs in the US, in recent decades. This structure of political conflict is spreading in the world, especially in Europe. Everywhere, we see in popular electorates a mixture of xenophobic temptation and resigned acceptance of global laws of capitalism. Since it is unrealistic to expect much of the regulation of finance and multinationals, hitting on immigrants and foreigners is a lot easier, albeit without the prospect of doing us much good. Many Trump or Le Pen voters are convinced that it is easier to attack immigrants than the financial system or even imagine an alternative economic system to capitalism.
Faced with this deadly threat, the response of the left and center is hesitant. Sometimes it is to align the dominant rhetoric of identity (as illustrated by the sad example of the French controversy on the burkini, fueled by a Prime Minister who claims to be Progressive). Or, more often, to abandon the lower and middle classes to their fate, themselves often guilty of voting against their own interests (or not voting at all) and to under-finance their political campaigns, making them dependent on a few rich donors.
Thus the parties of the left and center are found to promote themselves as the cult of market-kings, differentiating themselves from the populist right only by defending, at least formally, racial and cultural equality. This allows them to retain the votes of minorities and immigrants, while losing much of the indigenous working class, the most disadvantaged, who must increasingly turn to the best equipped in the world market for protection.
The challenge is immense, and nobody has a miracle solution. In the United States, In 2008 Hillary Clinton was supportive of a more ambitious social progress than Barack Obama, on universal health insurance, for example. Today, with the weariness in the Clinton dynasty, the fees received from Goldman Sachs, the time spent with donors to her husband, she appears more and more as the candidate of the establishment. She must now show the supporters of Sanders and demonstrate to the electorate that she is best placed to improve their lot. This involves proposals on the minimum wage, public education and tax justice. Several Democratic leaders have pushed her to finally announce strong measures on the taxation of multinationals and the largest fortunes. She could find justification for this in the recent EU decision to charge Apple for its Irish profits, which would also allow her to oppose the conservative position of the US Treasury and the financial community (who dream only of a tax amnesty for repatriated profits of multinationals).
The best solution would be if Europe imposed a significant minimum tax - at least 25% or 30% - on the profits of European and US multinationals. Such talk would show a genuine willingness to change our approach to globalization. If companies like Apple and others have obviously brought the world considerable innovations, the truth is that these giants could not have emerged without decades of public research and community facilities, benefiting from lower tax rates). This would require transparency and political courage. The time has come for Hilary Clinton to step up to the plate. leave comment here
