It is a model of shortterm economic policy

The Employment Council, the Council of economic analysis and the strategic analysis Council have endeavoured, each in their own way, to bury the prospect of taking into account the added value created by labour to calculate the contribution of employers, thus refusing to anticipate disruptions that are initiated in the economic logic. The problem of employment would still be "a question of excessive burdens weighing on the company" and not of the development of a new productive efficiency of research, training, new organization of work, cooperation between businesses...

We us a little more let a deadlock. The original bias comes from the interdepartmental working group which met in the spring of 2006 to test various hypotheses for reform. He has focused on the criteria of economic policy, i.e. the cyclical effects, rather than a reflection on the single relevant horizon for employment and efficiency productive, that of the medium and long term, i.e. 2020 and beyond. This issue of horizon is the source of all the difficulties. No reform of the contribution of enterprises cannot resolve here at 18 months the problem of unemployment rate still hovers 9! Should only be referred to the structural effect in the long term, the choice on the evolution of productive combinations, on the Organization and development of enterprises and human capabilities. It, thereby, to promote the production of wealth to finance collective social coverage.

The tool used is not good. It is a model of short-term economic policy. He shows this horizon of the impact of the types of proposed reforms sensitive differences: the assessment on the added value, the modulation to the added value, social VAT, employment-activity, the widespread employer contribution coefficient. But, whatever the results of these simulations, we cannot accept them because we do not aim "opportunistic" but although "structural" reform These are other economic models, taking into account of the failures in the content of the productive dynamics that would have had to mobilize.

We're here in the heart at a time of great moot and a concrete debate. It is not advocate productivity on the brakes, which would bring us to a logic of work-sharing, but to promote a new approach to productivity to pave the way for a sustainable development strategy. We need change control over the economy and management. The idea to take into account in the employer contribution of depreciation and the profits of companies would be "unthinkable because only unfavourable to the accumulation of physical capital and hence to growth", we are told. Is to ignore the beginnings of the new technological revolution. Our economy integrates more activities with high added value in which increase the share of "intangible capital". Training, qualification, research and development become the essential levers of growth. The work at all levels plays a fundamental role in the process of accumulation of the expertise and knowledge, essential to create the conditions for a new productive efficiency. But it does not come to the idea of a majority of the experts that the change of mode of contribution could promote the development of intangible expenses! All things being equal, should be referring to what spent on agriculture in the 19th century; the rise of property taxes favored investment in agricultural production techniques. Why can we envisage a system of incentive collection to new productive efficiency in harmony with the vision of the development of the knowledge society

It offers us to persevere in the model of the 19th and 20th centuries without perceiving the urgency of a transformation of production systems and consumption patterns. Stop fun with some ecologists gadgets Gallery. It is now that it will have to reduce the footprint of human activities on the environment, adopt a new path of growth for all countries to commit to a logic of development and break with the old productivist model. This is why give new content to the choice of growth, to the management of firms as to economic policies. Continue in the logic of competition of waste of capital and the only labour productivity leads to ecological disasters and deadly clashes across the world.

We finally need a real diagnosis to determine which bride the growth of the major countries of the European Union. The potential growth in Europe is much lower than that of the main areas of development. This has not just a failure of the productivity of labour and a lower accumulation of tangible investments, but a weakness in the overall productivity of factors of production. This gap is rooted in a level lowest integration of new technologies, in a waste of financial resources and inadequate development of human capabilities.

Start to build new joints between a qualified physical capital and intangible capital on the other hand is therefore required. What do incorporate current economic models or classical economic debate. The theoretical discussion continues to presuppose a strong complementarity between physical capital and labour, which effectively invalidates any idea of taxation of depreciation, so physical assets in a globalized mode marked by the mobility of capital. But suppose that this is the past and that the articulation between skilled labour and non-depreciable intangible resources has become very strong, much stronger than the articulation with physical capital. Then the principle of a contribution of gross value added upgrade would be conducive to the accumulation of intangible capital and the development of human capabilities. By refusing to enter into this debate, the France has its weaknesses and prepares defeats future economic and labour and social setbacks. It is perhaps not too later that opens a real confrontation on these policy issues.