Nupeswashing is trending | Is the economic system on land or on land? | Jean-Marie Harribey

Economist Henri Sterdyniak, in an interview Financial Alternate options, focuses its consideration on the New Individuals’s Ecological and Social Union (NUPES) program and brings varied criticisms to it.[1]thus, he confirmed his feedback for the journal. Level two weeks in the past: “We’d like so much when it comes to public expenditures, when it comes to well being, when it comes to ecological transition, when it comes to enhancing our schooling system. Retiring at age 60, which could be very pricey, will not be a precedence. »[2] signifies in Financial options that this price represents 5% of GDP (simply over €100 billion estimated by the very liberal Institut Montaigne) and that it is rather troublesome to extend taxes and contributions additional.

Let’s study a number of the arguments put ahead by our colleague.

1. Social contribution in payroll

If we don’t improve contributions within the context of stagnant wages, the share of the wage invoice in worth added is invariably mounted on the relative degree imposed by neoliberalism for 4 many years. And coincidentally, the extra 5% of GDP that retirement at 60 will signify corresponds to the extra share of the added worth that capital steals from labor within the neoliberal period. So to imagine that the contribution degree can’t be elevated is tantamount to approving this disastrous share of added worth for employees. Our colleague is correct on this regard, we’ll discover it troublesome to finance all of the social wants that have to be met.

The share of wages in worth added in France in % (supply: Banque de France)


It has been observed that Mr. Macron will not be a robust supporter of wage will increase. Prefers bonuses, participation and revenue sharing. Medef additionally as a result of there is no such thing as a contribution price in these covert wage funds. Would not that be sufficient to scale back the deficits of retirement plans?

Alternatively, Henri Sterdyniak doesn’t seek advice from a proposal current within the giant sectors of social actions and commerce unionism: a proposal to broaden the idea of contributions to the entire added worth (or much less the portion of the income distributed to the homeowners). of the capital). He even launched it, not giving his identify, saying, “We weren’t capable of contribute to the dividends, as a result of this is not going to open the pension entitlement.” However this argument ignores that so-called employer contributions do not unlock pension advantages anyway. Nevertheless, we can not think about eradicating them.

To repair the concepts, let’s study the accounts created by the nation in its Basic Financial Assertion 2019 (the 12 months earlier than Covid-19) by INSEE.

In response to INSEE’s TEE 2019:

2019 (Md €)

Payroll of monetary and non-financial organizations

Gross wages

So-called employer social contributions

Gross working surplus (EBITDA)

Gross mounted capital formation (GFCF)

Fastened capital consumption (CCF)

Web working surplus (ENE = EBE – CCF)

Web added worth of firms (VAN = sal. mass + ENE)

Web funding (GFCF – CCF)










Potential distributed income in 2019 (ENE – internet funding): 172.4 – 58.9 = 113.5 billion. If we apply the 28.1% outdated age contribution, 31.9 billion will probably be added to the present contribution.

Whereas some concern that the load of charges on capital earnings will probably be too excessive, it ought to be remembered that they’ve escaped the progressive earnings tax scale and are topic to a single flat tax of 30% (12.5% ​​tax and 17.2% social safety). contributions).

Certainly, reluctance to debate a broadening of the bottom of contributions stems from the confusion of the idea of contribution.quantity platewhich is a pure calculation rule for making use of a contribution ratio with supplyany tax remaining as the online added worth of labor[3]. The principle thought behind broadening the social contribution base is to maintain the hyperlink between work and contribution; it solely will increase the wage invoice and its relative weight in internet added worth.

With the voices of each the President and the Prime Minister, the federal government and employers aren’t mistaken: We should work more durable as a result of the wants are so nice. In a manner, they’re proper, as a result of in doing so that they tacitly acknowledge that the brand new worth is that solely labor is productive. Whereas forgetting that rising the working hours supplied will be achieved by hiring the unemployed somewhat than using those that have already got a job. Repetitive laments concerning the low employment fee of the aged in France (56% for 55-64 12 months olds) restrict the absurdity as a result of elevating the authorized retirement age doesn’t create further jobs.

This dialogue reveals that we can not separate the issues of employment, working time and worth added distribution. Until we proceed to hope for renewed sturdy financial progress to resolve all social issues with out having to vary the earnings distribution. Nevertheless, this strategy faces a maybe insurmountable hurdle, specifically the weak point of labor productiveness positive aspects that seek advice from enterprise degradation and ecological degradation. Thus, it’s clear that Henri Sterdyniak is correct to doubt the relevance of the social mannequin advocated by NUPES if the wage invoice stays at its present relative degree, but when we transfer the slider of the value-added distribution, he’s utterly fallacious. If he doesn’t think about this speculation, is it as a result of he has not utterly deserted all hope of financial progress?

2. The place we speak about cash once more

to the queryFinancial options To the query of figuring out whether or not the restoration of public debt by the ECB, thus turning it into everlasting debt at zero curiosity, can be an answer, and to know whether or not we are able to get out of debt, Henri Sterdyniak solutions two issues. First, that NUPES “eliminated public debt from the accounts of the Financial institution of France” and “forgot to ask for the elemental measure, specifically the European Central Financial institution to ensure public debt, thereby eliminating rate of interest differentials”. eurozone and leaving speculators out of labor”. This reproach is a fully fallacious judgment, one solely has to learn this system of NUPES, particularly the part dedicated to the creation of a public banking pillar, to be satisfied of it.

Then Henri Sterdyniak says: “Home public debt will not be an issue. In 2020, when the federal government widened the deficit by sustaining family earnings, those that couldn’t devour saved the excess of their financial institution accounts. The banks entrusted this cash to the Banque de France, which purchased the general public securities. The circuit was accomplished with none issues. The compensation for the loans made by the state is the French deposits in business banks or belongings in life insurance coverage, which makes the debt non-cancellable besides by explaining that it’s going to not be repaid to the savers! If the ECB refuses to refinance too many French securities, because it did for Greece, the issue is overseas debt. »[4]

Henri Sterdyniak is fallacious on this declare: banks have by no means entrusted the financial savings of the French individuals to the central financial institution; secondly, he by no means used this untraceable cash in his accounts to purchase public debt securities from banks. In different phrases, Henri Sterdyniak turns financial idea into its reverse. The Central Financial institution buys again public securities by creating central financial institution cash, not utilizing current financial savings. This dialogue level on cash and financial creation is repeated with Henri Sterdyniak. Many people identified this disagreement in dismay on the first seminar on cash in The Economists, suggesting that it was a matter of a resurgence of the classical thesis of earlier financial savings funds.[5]. Furthermore, in Henri Sterdyniak’s mannequin this isn’t the smallest element, since in the end every part will depend on financial savings, so subordination to the monetary markets through which they flow into stays full.

The conceptual confusion arises from the truth that on the finish of the financial cycle (the so-called “closing second”) the financial savings generated by the financial dynamic seem. in alternate for financial advances (immediately from extraordinary banks or the central financial institution or by way of financial institution refinancing). All modern financial idea (from Marx to Keynes and after Keynesians) rejects Henri Sterdyniak’s imaginative and prescient of unconsciously making financial savings the place to begin of the circuit.

That is such a posh query that there’s a lengthy academic work to be completed on financial points, particularly when the problem is to consider methods to finance the transition. social meat ecological.

le Nupeswash it is getting trendy. The well-meaning press contributes to the discourse of the federal government and employers, each when it comes to Nupes’ financial, social and ecological proposals, and particularly when it comes to its political orientation in direction of the European Union.[6]. If any criticism is legit and subsequently entitled to citizenship, it’s essential to make sure its appropriateness. In a temper of common hostility to any departure from neoliberal dogma, it could most likely be prudent to be cautious of arguments which may backfire.

[1] Henri Sterdyniak, “Nupes program has no priorities”, Financial optionsMight 27, 2022, Hervé Nathan’s interview.

[2] Varied developments on this dialogue will be discovered on the following hyperlinks: Jean-Marie Harribey, “Increasing the bottom of contributions for financing pensions”, Notice 15 January 2020; “What social contribution to social safety”, 9 February 2019; “The which means of social contribution”, 17 August 2014; “Develop social contribution”, political965, 30 August 2007; “Notice on the financing of medical insurance”, 18 June 2004; “Making the talk on financing social safety a political one”, Technical notice, 30 June 2004.

Leave a Comment