Pension funds also grow in this direction

What recognition is the "supercapitalism" you describe in your book

A competition between the companies, which was wonderfully reinforced in recent years. Three forces caused this change: the emergence of new technologies, globalization and deregulation. Consumers and investors now have a world of opportunities open to them. Companies must engage in an intense competition to attract one another and others. Their CEO can no longer afford to take divergent positions of the interests of the shareholders. They can no longer take into account the interests of other stakeholders in the company employees, suppliers, communities. This reversal creates major problems, up to undermine democracy. In their fierce rivalry, businesses seek to consume all the levers of power. The conviction of Microsoft for abuse of dominant position by the European Commission, confirmed last year, is not the culmination of a battle between the State and the company, but a confrontation between companies.

Benefiting from this supercapitalism

It's very good for investors, that maximize their income, and consumers, who pay less and less expensive. But it is harmful to the production of public goods, security of employment, the level of wages, to the climate of the planet... What we want as an investor and purchaser is in conflict with what we want as an employee and citizen. America is more advanced in this way. But the same forces are all over the world.

You devote a chapter in your book of lobbying. Why give both place

The rise of the lobbying is the result of this competition strengthened between companies, and it is the cause of the weakening of democracy. A flood of silver from the companies is sweeping across Washington. The number of lobbyists is more than tripled in a decade. Lobbying, it's like the arms race: when a company is used, its competitors can not avoid to do the same. The maximization of profits through political decisions on competition, of trade rules, intellectual property, which are taken in Congress and the courts. The result of these huge resources spent by businesses to put pressure on the political life, is that the price to be heard becomes more and more high. The voice of the citizens is drowned. Companies now dominate the political process in Washington. I don't blame them: it is in their logic.

For a long time, theorists explained that democracy and capitalism were two sides of the same coin, that freedom in economy finished inevitably lead to political freedom. This is true

For thirty years, strengthened capitalism and democracy is weakened. She responds less well to the needs of the citizens. In reality, capitalism is a prerequisite of democracy, but the reverse is not true. China is developing a new form of capitalism, very authoritarian. If we are not careful, we all end up there.

In recent years, the non-governmental organizations or NGOs have experienced spectacular growth. Is it not one of the responses to the problem you raise

NGOs are doing an important job, but the pressure on companies to maximize the return on investment of shareholders does not entitle to focus on social or environmental objectives. All shareholders are organized to increase their income. This is the case of the "private equity" and sovereign wealth funds. Pension funds also grow in this direction.

"Social responsibility of companies" is therefore a decoy.

It is the public relationship. Companies make just enough to maintain their image. There is a real danger that public opinion eventually believe that companies have of actual social concerns while there is nothing. On the environment, for example, they are never sacrificing their return on investment.

And socially responsible investment

Same reasoning. It is a very small part of the investments, less than 2 of the total. This form of investment bute on two problems. First, the individual investor, even if he is willing to lose a little bit of performance, will be unwilling to make sacrifices if other investors are not. It is the same for consumers: they are willing to pay a little more expensive only if they are certain that this would be useful. Then, it is very difficult to agree on what is socially responsible. Take the example of nuclear energy. For some, it is a clean energy be preferred. For others, worried about waste and the risk of proliferation, it is to ban.

In a survey conducted in 2005, only 36 of the French were in agreement with the following statement

: "Free enterprise and the free market economy are the best system on which to base the future of the world". In the 20 countries surveyed, the average was 61. What would you say

The France has a long tradition of State strong and suspicion of markets. The United States have a rather from "cowboy capitalism" where it is suspicious of the Government. It is also a classic opposition between the right that relies on markets and challenges of the State while the left is the reverse. But it is now a false debate! The markets are very good to meet the needs of investors and consumers. They are very bad for addressing social and environmental issues. Let therefore the markets be where they are effective. But democracy is also necessary. The crucial question is how the Government organize the market.

I turn now to the solutions. You propose to tax more the very rich. But is there not a risk, that of some of these taxpayers

Very high income were taxed at the marginal rate of... 91 in the United States in the 1950s. Today, managers of "hedge funds" or "private equity" are taxed at 15. If their tax rate to 40, rare are those who leave the United States... The next team who will be in power in Washington, in a year, will take over a country where the debt has increased by 4,000 billion under the era Bush. If Democrats win the election and want to develop insurance or investment in infrastructure, although it need money.

Should States also encourage their businesses

Not at all, because the world has completely changed. Thirty years ago, there were entities which could be characterized as American companies. They made the most of their value to the United States. There are still a few domestic firms in Europe, for example in France. But, today, most large companies are working on global markets. They organize their chain of production on a global scale based on the costs and efficiency India research or Massachusetts manufacturing in China, etc. The link between businesses and their country is broken. Economic patriotism is therefore obsolete. Government support to national champions could be justified when the aid benefited employees who worked in the country. This is no longer the case today...

Should we then leave sovereign funds buy freely all the companies they want to

Like any investor, sovereign wealth funds put their money to obtain the greatest possible performance. But if they have other objectives, political in nature, the States are entitled to intervene to block. And, frankly, it is preferable for the financial balance of the planet that the Chinese capital or near eastern are invested in shares in Treasury bonds.

In supercapitalism, is Europe in the same posture than America

Investors have the same logic of the two sides of the Atlantic. Europeans could put a spoke in the wheels of investors and foreign companies who want to acquire firms. But this would result in a decline in investment, the standard of living, wages... No, Europe is going, too, become supercapitaliste. Moreover, Europeans have no more confidence in democracy and their Governments that the Americans.

How to restore the faith in democracy

First, it must be clearly understood the supercapitalism springs. Then, we must learn to practise our citizenship. We are very well educated as consumers. Many of us are savvy investors. But we learn more of citizenship, we do sometimes know more what it is. Finally, we need a new generation of leaders. Political leaders who can say, as John Fitzgerald Kennedy, "ask not what your country can do for you, but ask yourself what you can do for your country". Business leaders able to see the Governments to say: "We need a law to compel us to better protect the environment, because we cannot do it by ourselves."

You see emerge such a generation

Most recently, Yes. A delegation of business leaders came to apply to the Congress of the United States the establishment of a system of rights to pollute. And among the candidates in the presidential election, these themes are. Among Republicans, John McCain is a strong supporter of the reform of the financing of electoral campaigns. Among Democrats, all candidates are calling for a reduction in the role of business in the US policy. Barack Obama has something more. He interested young people, it is capable of transmitting the kind of message that knew to get Kennedy.