1. We can also talk about investment returns.
In some contexts, rate of return rather than "return on capital" in relation to investments suggests better that the numerator of this ratio, as it is used in the distribution of total income, is only saving placement income, to the exclusion of any surplus values.
2. Reminder 1 (argument of proposal 8.3): the social body refuses to allow the rates of return on savings placements to rise from generation to generation.
If this were to happen, the equality between GR total income (TI) = total saving placement income (SI) + total labor income (LI) would cause the relative share of LI in TI to fall sharply. Periods of a few quarters or years when this decline has begun inexorably lead to reactions that halt the increase in the relative share of SI in RG.
3. Reminder 2 (argument of proposition 8.3): society refuses that if the total income (TI) increases, the total income from work (RT) does not also increase.
Common sense knows, by reasoning and experimentally, that the increase in GR has two causes: enough new investments giving effect to new work. Both this refusal and the previous one are satisfied when the long-term trend of return on capital is one of stability.
4. Around its tendency towards stability, the DPR oscillates.
Fully exercising the EPCE relationship reduces the time between the highs and lows of the ROP oscillations.
5. Exiting the era of polluting energy production may require an increase in the trend towards stability in DPR.
This will be the case if the new energy mix requires, in total, much greater investments than before.
6. Drying up the financing of pensions through the raking of surplus values may require an increase in the trend towards stability in the DPR.
This sweep is a cause of volatility that is detrimental to full employment and the improvement of the quality of life. If the average rate of return on equity investments proves to be too low to put an end to it, the only solution will be a structural increase in this rate.