1. capital">First, link development and growth to direct investments in new capital.

• If linking development first to a specific action is good policy, then it is also good to link employment to this same action.

The social treatment of unemployment is an illusion if it takes the place of employment policy. The latter only completely absorbs structural unemployment if it is a development policy.

• Growth and employment are consequences, as are competitiveness and the general state of the economy.

More competitiveness and a better overall state of the economy go hand in hand with more growth and job creation. Growth, employment, competitiveness and the general state of the economy are interdependent and have common determinants.

• In these common determinants, neither the rigour of analysis nor the vigour of action allows us to exclude that there is one that is more important than the others in all places and at all times.

The "circularity of economic exchanges does not justify the pitiful parable of the chicken and the egg."¹⁰⁶.

• The most decisive cause is necessarily rooted in the primordial reality that the system of economic exchanges establishes, in terms of employment, growth and competitiveness.

Let's take a step back and see. New elementary commodities are constantly being injected into the economic system¹⁰⁷. Paid work services are included, as are business working capital investment services. To obtain as much paid work as full employment requires, these placements must be sufficient. This is economically essential.

• Voters who do not trust the essentials make elected officials who evade them. Let's give ourselves over to an experiment.

"To what is it more relevant to link the best state of the economy first and definitively?" Let's ask this question around us and also look for the answer in broadcasts and other publications. When there is an answer, what is it worth? Is it the vague product of vague judgments? Does it suppose that the problem has been solved? What does it reveal about our mentalities?

• An individual P, or a non-profit association A, invests money. This investment is direct when no intermediary (a mutual fund for example) interposes itself between P or A and entity E, which makes it an element of its financing and which will ensure its remuneration, as well as its repayment if necessary.

P, or A, subscribes to the capital increase or the issue of bonds of a financial institution. It is a direct investment. P, or A, is placed in a savings account managed by an intermediary, or even by a cascade of intermediaries. It is not a direct investment.

• Financial intermediation increases the risk of systemic crisis. The greater the share of financial institutions in the financing of the economy, the higher this risk.

Well-designed and strictly enforced, regulation of the financial industry reduces this risk. But, collectively, relying too much on it is unwise. However, this is all the more true given that there is a decline in the share of direct savings placements in the financing of enterprises and public debt.

• The extension of the practice of direct financing is technically possible. This is one of the consequences of the intensive use of telematic means by legal persons, private and public, as well as individuals.

This significantly reduces the cost of a direct relationship between an organization and a large number of potential and active subscribers. The techniques that can be used for this purpose make relationships more continuously interactive.

• A society that makes extensive use of direct investing increases its economic power. One of them is that of the arbitrations that, in a longer circuit, financial intermediation captures. Another of these powers is that of managing the share of its income allocated to financial investments with better knowledge of the facts.

In this respect, the convergence of individual interests with the general interest is obvious. However, it is only raised to its highest level through the collective recognition of an undeniable reality: the insufficiency of the money invested in working capital of enterprises slows down the creation of sustainable jobs.

• Direct investments do not create money. As a result, these investments are not a cause of currency depreciation.

A public levy (taxes + loans) that no longer increases as a proportion of total income is also no longer a cause of currency depreciation. The smaller the depreciation, the easier it is for anyone to build a portfolio of direct investments, the basis, or all, of which has two qualities: it is low-risk and its return is positive, despite the currency depreciation. In addition, and this is not negligible, this portfolio is transferable to the heirs of its owner.

• Thanks to my savings in capital, I participate in the creation of capital. This contribution is an investment in new capital.

I subscribe to a capital increase. This contribution is also an investment in new capital. I sell shares. The investment of their buyer(s) never constitutes new capital.

• The market cap has increased. The investment flow of new listed capital may not have changed from before.

The market cap has declined. This does not mean that there has been a net destruction of the capital exploited by the enterprise whose title to the property is listed on the stock exchange.

• Contributions of new capital increase the national capital stock. At the same time, this stock is constantly affected by losses.

The redirection of the savings thus lost to consumption participates in the creative destruction. This is on one condition: savings must be invested in capital again ; this is necessary so that destruction, often through obsolescence, goes hand in hand with creation. It is also necessary, in abundance, for this creation to be solidly financed.

• One advantage is undeniable. Growth, which is mainly fuelled by savings invested in new capital , is only supplemented by public levies (taxes + loans).

In order not to see this as an advantage, we must overlook three certainties: the persistent inflation of the public levy suffocates growth; the structure of its financing conditions the solidity of an enterprise; the subset that most creates and destroys stable jobs is that of small and medium-sized enterprises.

• One objection does not hold. The conditions under which people's savings would be massively attracted by the investment of capital could not be met.

This will remain true as long as the remuneration, security and settlement of capital investments have not been substantially improved. The objection of conditions being too unattractive would only hold if this improvement were forever unfeasible. This is not the case.

• Direct investments limits speculative bubbles.

Speculative bubbles are obviously all the more devastating because they are massive. And they are all the more so because credit Credit contributes to their growth. When, moreover, this credit is itself massively instilled by money creation, full employment more often than underemployment is at the end of a path so undermined that it becomes impossible to achieve it in the long term. This is why it is necessary to clear this path through reforms.

• Popularizing what capital shares are Capital_Social does not present any difficulty. However, this popularization is impartial on a condition that is not commonly respected today.

Some of these shares are negotiableand others returnable. Only negotiables have a liquidation value that is varied by offers to sell and purchase requests. There is less casino economy if the advertising of the exploited value per share is introduced. The relative proportion of investments in returnable shares is extendable, provided that it is accepted that the remuneration of these investments must exist, but that it is also attractive.

• What makes savings in capital more or less well treated also lends itself to their popularization. For this to be effective, we must not consider usual practices as inviolable, including in tax matters, of course.

In addition, there are two other innovations, in the current state of economic discourse. One concerns the "first": "should job creation be ensured first... ». The other concerns the "direct": "... by your direct investments in new shares of capital? ». Both help to dispel denials of reality and feasibility.

• Holding Enterprise Structures move the initial capital provider away from the end use of investments. Through this distance, ad hoc bodies are capturing power to their advantage and laying the groundwork for endogamous and robotic finance.

This endogamy and robotization are problematic. Such recordings should not be encouraged. It is even less desirable that they be systematized. The legislator can effectively oppose this, by establishing and gradually increasing the proportions of capital held directly by individuals. The services of investment advisors, who practice this profession in complete independence, have their raison d'être. But pretending that these services can be provided for free opens the door to scams. There is no shortage of convincing arguments in favor of direct investments, managed by means of new communication techniques and duly supervised by the legislator who ensures that they are countered.

• A population, when its quality of life is severely damaged by the lack of jobs, expects first and foremost that this lack be remedied. It then hopes that this remedy will be compatible with a range of variations in the weight of the public levy that suits it.

The remedy exists. The possibility of making it more active through the full remuneration of the share savings in capital is a reality. Even if the reluctance to use it persists, because it disturbs ways of seeing and doing, it will continue to exist.

• In other words, a country where, over the last twenty years, economic growth has been so weak that structural unemployment has increased. But now permanent stimulus through direct savings placements is finally becoming a deliberate practice.

This is done through the reforms described below – Cleaning up the capital market, guidelines 6 to 10. Twenty years after the entry into force of these changes, in the financing of enterprises: 1) the total loans, in absolute value, have remained constant, 2) the share of capital has increased significantly.

• While the latter increase was quite substantial, the growth rate rose and the unemployment rate fell. It is so certain that it is necessary to draw brutal conclusions.

A government which considers itself competent in general economics shows that it is mistaken as to what is most elementary and less doubtful in this matter if it refuses, or if it does not occur to it, to link growth and employment primarily to direct investments in new capital. The citizens of a country whose government is making this mistake are doing no better than it is if they refrain from demanding more and more insistence from it an economic policy which makes it a rule to link growth and employment first to direct investments in new capital.

• The crucial law of economic policy, set out here by Guideline 1, contributes to the objectification of economic policy decisions, thus strengthening the social body.

Whether within a nation or in international relations, the enslavement of the subjectivity of some by the subjectivity of others narrows the field of effective freedoms and fuels violence. More objectivity has the opposite effect. A government that believes it is working towards greater social cohesion and international understanding without strengthening common objectivity is deluding itself. Awareness of the crucial law of good economic policy is, in itself, a constructive step forward. The ideas which lead to the rejection or degradation of this law, which is precise, in order to indulge in the ease of imprecise formulations, are fantasies, either by the methodological subjectivism from which they proceed even when they have been given the reputation of being the products of an authentic science, or else by the fears which they turn into reactions of self-defense.