The aim of the book is to ‘revisit the work of a great French economist, little known in his own country but recognised abroad, for example in the United States, in the light of the current situation in 21st-century France’. The economist Florin Aftalion said of him: ‘Bastiat’s understanding of the workings of the state was so keen that he predicted the introduction of social security and that it would run into deficit even before it existed.’ In his book, Michel Albouy clearly demonstrates the continuing relevance of Bastiat’s ideas more than 150 years later.
Bastiat believes that ‘the defence of the market and of competition appears to be one of the most enlightening issues for our era of resurgent socialism and interventionism’. He asks ‘why we pay such high taxes’, why the national education system struggles so much to properly educate young French people, why a war does not create jobs… By posing these questions, Bastiat proves to be a ‘visionary’. In his view, ‘the market and free trade are the foundations of national prosperity’, protectionism is recessionary, and price freezes create shortages. Bastiat criticises the inconsistency of citizens who approve of subsidies for businesses but criticise tax increases. At the heart of Bastiat’s thinking is also private property, which he considers a natural right predating the law, constituting ‘a bulwark against the arbitrariness of the State’ and a factor of freedom. He is a staunch advocate of the market economy, which makes it possible to ‘meet the real needs of ordinary people’, because it is ‘the most modest people, the poorest populations, who benefit from competition’.
Using a bibliography of Frédéric Bastiat’s works as a starting point, Michel Albouy sets out his own understanding of the social role of economists, which he believes is to explain the consequences of economic policies and to inform public decision-making. This is precisely what Frédéric Bastiat did through his books and colums.
Michel Albouy is Professor Emeritus of Finance. In particular, he observed that ‘it is the shareholder who finances their own dividend’ or that, in the event of a takeover bid, people criticise the resulting redundancies, forgetting that ‘the company in question was poorly managed and/or that the merger would make it possible to save what could still be saved’.
Jean Jacques Pluchart