In the context of current "discussions" in DC, I found this startling passage from “The Collapse of the Third Republic – An Inquiry intothe Fall of France in 1940”
Chapter II “Decline – Political and financial chaos, and
the Poincaré recovery 1924-1930”
Year after year during the
1920s, whether the cabinet was conservative or radical, the borrowing and the
advances continued until there came a time – several times – when the
short-term loans could not be repaid when they fell due and the advances from
the Bank of France were halted and the Treasury was literally empty.
It seemed obvious that taxes would have to be raised and
some financial sacrifices made by those best able to afford them. But this did not seem obvious to Parliament. For five years after the war it declined to
vote any substantial increase in taxes.
When the Finance Minister of the conservative Bloc National government in 1923 asked for six billion francs in
new taxes, he was turned down. At the
beginning of 1924, the Treasury could not meet its short-term obligations and
Parliament finally approved Poincaré’s demand for a rise of 20 percent in all
taxes, direct and indirect. This fell
hardest on the poor, since indirect taxes on consumption account for nearly
half the state revenues, and the income tax – full of glaring loopholes and
scandalously evaded by all who could get by with it, the rich above all – for less
than a quarter. The selfishness of the
moneyed class in avoiding any financial sacrifice to help put the country back
on its feet later struck many French historians as shocking. The possessors and the manipulators of most
of the country’s wealth simply contrived to escape shouldering a fair share of
the burden for the war and the reconstruction.
They stubbornly and successfully opposed all efforts of
Parliament and government to increase income taxes adequately and fairly or
even to clean up the rotten tax structure which weighed so much more heavily on
the poor than on the rich. And in their
fanatical regard for their capital and profits, which was matched only by their
disregard for the salvation of the country, they spirited their capital abroad
to such a massive extent as to make inevitable a fall of the currency, the
bankruptcy of the Treasury, and a lack of capital at home to finance badly
needed reconstruction and in particular to enable the farmers, the little
businessmen, and the shopkeepers to get a new start in the difficult postwar
world. When in the spring of 1925 the
Herriot government asked Parliament for a law to control the headlong flight of
French capital abroad the measure was bitterly attacked in the capital’s
leading afternoon newspaper, Le Temps,
organ of the steel trust, Le Comité des Forges, as “rank socialism” which would
destroy the capitalist system.
Parliament refused to approve the law, the massive movement of capital
abroad continued without hindrance, and though the Treasury was again emptied
and the franc fell further France was saved from this sort of “rank socialism”.
But the government was not saved from the necessity of
finding money to carry on the affairs of state.
When the debate in the Chamber of Deputies on where to find it began in
November 1924, a Socialist leader, Pierre Renaudel, made a suggestion that
raised a howl of protest from conservatives in Parliament and the Press. “You
have to take the money from where it is,” he argued. Indeed, one might ask, from where else?” But the very idea of asking those who had the
money to shoulder the main burden of increased taxation frightened them to
death and there was a new exodus of capital to safer foreign havens. “Above all else,” cried the influential Journal des Finances, “there must be a
stop to this worrying of the possessors.”
Perhaps so, though the possessors seemed easily prone to worry. The worries of the dispossessed were not
mentioned, nor was the worrying of the government by hostile acts of the
financial community, led by the Bank of France, which in the spring of 1925
launched an offensive against the “leftish” Herriot cabinet with the object of bringing
it down and terminating the threat against its moneybags.
The flight of capital itself, in which the great financial
houses took the lead, was, aside from the damage it did to the country, a form
of blackmail against the government not to raise taxes and especially not to
consider a tax on capital. The banks resorted
to other forms of blackmail. They
offered to lend the Treasury money for twenty-four hours in order to cover up
the advances of the Bank of France above the legal limit in return for the
government overlooking evasions of income tax and refraining from clamping on a
control of the export of capital.
Suddenly, at the beginning of April 1925, as the final assault on the
Herriot government began, the banks refused further loans, even for a day, so
that the surpassing of the legal limit of advances from the Bank of France had
to be published. As a result the franc
fell and further panic ensued.
Actually, during the conservative Poincaré regime prior to
1924 the Bank of France had often advanced to the Treasury more than the law
allowed. Moreover it had put at Poincaré’s
disposal certain “secret funds” of the Bank, which were considerable. Now, in April 1925, it denied to the Cartel
government what it had been pleased to accord the more moderate Poincaré
cabinet. On April 1 and again on April 6
the Bank of France warned the government that the legal limit of its advances
to the state – 41 billion francs – was about to be reached, that it would be
illegal to advance more, and that the government would find itself without
means to meet its obligations, even the payroll of its employees. Secretly the Bank leaked the news to the press,
most of which, including the large-circulation daily newspapers, had
vociferously supported the financial powers in the offensive to bring down the
Cartel government. The influence of the
French press, dominated by large business and financial interests, in
undermining not only a popularly elected government but – more important – the Third
Republic itself in these declining years was growing.
No comments:
Post a Comment