They are a subtraction for the economy in General

Jacques Delors is a pragmatic one admirable and formidable efficiency. The latest report of the CERC, an organization which he assumes the Presidency, is the most recent and a (new) brilliant testimony. If his goal was to shed light on a phenomenon that Crystal eyes for at least a good fifteen years but whose public denunciation is to question the taboo of the sacrosanct "flexibility" of the work, he succeeded fully. Politicians as a whole, and the general public, are now well forced to watch in the face that many of them wanted or even could not see. At the heart of the accelerated impoverishment of a fraction of the population, of the order of 10 if not more, there is instability and insecurity of employment and its the most insidious outlet: the unwanted part-time work ("Les Echos" of November 20). In the space of a week, the former President of the European Commission (1985-1994), now a purely advisory mandate, nevertheless knew impose an agenda truly on the page for the next Conference on employment convened for December 14 by Dominique de Villepin. It does look more, as was the case for many other initiatives of the Prime Minister, that she come to this.

In 1985 in Brussels, Delors was shown by the specific application of a similarly also thoughtful approach to the goal (at the time the redevelopment of Europe) that expeditious on the means advocated to achieve. The founding Treaty of Rome concluded in 1957 had established a common market between national economies to progressively closer. Pretext to deepen the work thus begun, the single Act signed in 1985 was for object a true merger as quickly as possible of the so-called economies: they form a vast single market "without borders". "Without borders" evokes an indefinite integration program. Persistent differences in the euro area illustrate the limits of a company which, by nature, does not.

In the light of this monumental precedent, the path advocated by the CERC takes unusual dimensions. To correct the impoverishment of a part of the population, the report submitted to the Government called on the intervention increased and responsible for what he called the current "social State" of constitution. With the laudable intention of a ride as complete as possible to the question, the CERC recalls the definition of "value added" (VA), without however on amalgam covered by this concept critically. Yet, there is the key to many derivatives of the so-called market economy. The social State is, under the pretext of improving the competitiveness of business, to relay... of the economy market, for aggravating circumstance, the active complicity of the employers.

Besides the VAT and other taxes on products and wages, value added is composed of two other elements. The first is the "cost of labour". According to the original system of our social security, it was understood, inter alia, health expenditures were financed by this part of the salary called "deferred", representing the different premiums paid by the company to the social security system. However, it is today the most "extended" expenditure of households, in other words, to the most dynamic sector of the economy. Is this not a very serious reason to wish that he does not escape the dynamics of the market economy As well would be if the application of health, instead of being supported by the deferred salary, was in the tax. Strange assimilation of a private industry (here the pharmaceutical) to the modus operandi of the public sector! The defect included in the artificial concept of will is precisely its misinterpretation of the Exchange process.

The element doing during the "cost of labour" is obviously the remuneration of the capital. In value added, the latter forms a set comprising mostly the following: the payment of the SI, the previous loans, depreciation of capital fixed business, partial self-financing of investments and, finally, the remuneration paid to the contributors of capital.

To see more clearly, should be a crucial distinction. On the one hand, the company retrieves, by the sale of its production, all expenses incurred, whether wages which are not a "value-added": they are the consideration for the service rendered by workers or wear of its equipment (depreciation) passing through the "consumption" of the loan previously contracted. On the other side and there is if it takes the value it added, there is the profit distributed to shareholders (dividends) or not (IS, self-financing). The benefit in the broad sense must be considered him as consideration for an Exchange: the shareholder by investing his savings in the capital of a company, in expected income... It is thus understood profit which causes the growth of the economy. Nothing more absurd in this regard the financial concept of "cost of capital", so that the benefit is roughly the "surplus" which speak some economists.

If the health expenditures but other, very important, also traditionally and normally incumbent upon companies, such training on the pile of hired workers, are more funded in full (it is already the case) by the dynamics of the Exchange as shown, they are out of the income already distributed. The people is slowly depleted. Grants received by the companies to pay the so-called "cost" of the RTT (it is in reality a lack to produce), the premium for employment, etc. allow them worth that worth to preserve their profits. They are a subtraction for the economy in General. Economic growth is amputated as much. But Delors believes that a priori working are given work to others (the Merchant Exchange dynamics) Page 77, he explains why early retirement did not "their theoretical effects of reducing unemployment." The reality is that they have been theoretical impacts of worsening underemployment.