1. Let us no longer make income the "new monetary resources that allow us to consume without becoming poorer, with a constant patrimony".
This statement can be found in the economic vocabulary handbooks under the entry "Income". Thus the amalgamation of income proper with Transfert_Economique">transfers is peddled. The income itself is in exchange for the service of a job or an investment. The contradictory term "transfer income" contributes to the repression of the primordial distinction between trade and economic Transfert_Economique">transfersTransfert_Economique83.
2. Economic exchanges are vectors of transfers in the form of surplus values and capital losses.
Among these exchanges, in addition to those involving works of art and other rarities, are real estate and stock market transactions. For the latter, it is as if it were now written in stone on the tables of economic laws that profits are not enough to make the savings in capital of enterprises whose co-ownership securities are listed attractive. By the reforms constituted by the introduction of the advertisements indicated in the preceding chapters, on capital and profit, the pre-eminence of rate of return over surplus value can be established.
3. To report "primary income" is only apparently in line with reality.
"Primary income", as indicated in the summary cited in this argument, is the "total income received by households in return for their productive activity" – received in the form of products from their sales of elementary commodities, in reality. Making "primary income" a category would only be justified if, in truth, "secondary income" existed. The other "new monetary resources" come without exception from transfers of which any surplus value is a part.
4. The holder of a so-called "income" of solidarity or substitution is a beneficiary.
It is only by means of the revenues proper that allowances can be provided, without becoming a cause of public debt by excess of burdens on the proceeds of taxes. The transfers received by the holders of life pensions provided by a pay-as-you-go pension scheme are also allowances and not income in the strict sense.
5. "National income" is the "sum of all primary income received by households".
This is what we read in the précis as in many other textbooks, as well as on the INSEE website. In other words, "national income" is total income (GI), probably as close as it is statistically possible to estimate.
6. « National accounts – All the accounts of the nation presented in a standardized Keynesian framework. »
This emphasis is my doing. In the national accounts thus standardized, there are aggregates not only of "product" but also of "production". Let us not dwell here on what leads us to specify that "national production is opposed to domestic production", as indicated in the précis cited. It should be noted, however, that, since there is no production without a product and vice versa, one must ask ourselves to what extent the "standardized Keynesian framework" is specious.
7. What then is "production" in this context?
The quoted summary answers: "The socially organized activity intended to create goods or services usually exchanged on a market and/or obtained with the help of factors of production exchanged on a market". The "and/or", which I have just underlined, indicates where the dividing line is between "product" without economic exchange and "production" with... but not always; It is easy to get lost.
8. A "national product" aggregates with the "value added" by enterprises a monetary valuation of the "product" of the general government and of any other non-enterprise employment.
This is done by taking into account, in particular, "the services rendered by Salarie employees of national public administrations evaluated on the basis of the wages and benefits paid to them and the social contributions paid for them".
9. The very idea of valuing the "product" of general government in terms of a monetary unit is not economically relevant.
The monetary unit is that of the measure of market exchange value. The output of public administrations has a use value. This does not mean that it has a economic exchange value. The very fact that it is not sold means that it does not have such value. Moreover, the "domestic product" of the standardised framework does not include the "product" of general government, which is aggregated only to the "national product". The general government wage bill is nevertheless a sum of labor income and, therefore, a creation of economic exchange value, in other words of economic wealth (more on this point below).
10. Opaque base 100 is put into circulation.
Voters and elected officials who want to understand in what sense national accounts – "in a standardized Keynesian framework" – use the notion of "product", and what possibly differentiates it from the notion of "production", often end up giving up on it. Gross or net, a "domestic product" and a "national product" make the base 100 opaque. But, with the help of panurgism, this frame of reference is law, particularly in the form of the sovereign GDP, the "gross domestic product", which came into the world in English under the name of GDP (Global Domestic Product).
11. The production of market wealth has only two origins.
One of these origins is the service of labor, the other the service of the investment of savings, when both are in return for an income. Who or what creates product? A creation is a production, a production is a creation. The expressions "commodity wealth creation" and "wealth production" refer to exactly the same economic reality. The rest of human production, including that of sovereign public functions that cost money as it costs money to support a family, is by definition non-marketable, not only on paper but first and foremost in reality. The same is true of all natural production apart from human production84.
12. The production of commodity wealth has only one destination.
IncomeRevenu and nothing but income is the common destination of the two origins of the creation of market wealth. This stems from the fact that commodities are only exchanged for commodities although this is most often by intermediary money, and on the understanding that in truth enterprises are the only entities that owe everything they own. Neoclassical theorization and macroeconomics of Keynesian origin, in order to see money as a commodity like any other (almost or completely according to the authors), cannot include, without contradiction with their subjectivist postulates, either the definition of the commodity or the distribution into homogeneous categories which is logically associated with it, nor a conception of the enterprise enslaved to what is objectively specific about this entity. More generally, they cannot, without denying themselves, bind themselves to the discipline of the logical definition of finite sets.
13. One result of one of the origins and the sole destination of the creation of market wealth concerns civil servants as such.
Civil servants and other employees of the public service, as well as domestic workers, for example, participate alongside the employees of the enterprises and as much as they do in the creation of market wealth, i.e. in the creation of economic exchange value, in their capacity as suppliers of the service of the labor exchanged for its own money.remuneration.
14. What has been the evolution of country P's contribution to the creation of economic wealth?
In view of the observations that have just been set out, the answer is obvious: the evolution of the sum, for country P, of the real income of its nationals and their non-commercial associations, on the basis of the returns on their investments alone.
15. Public charges must be capped at a percentage of total income (TI).
In order for the discussion of this ceiling, which is obviously a collective choice of great importance, to be open to all, it is better that the total of taxes be also brought closer to the total income (RG). The reality is not as close as possible when the expression as a percentage of public debt does not also have the total income (TI) as its base 100.
16. The sanctuarization of GDP has been backed neither by a structural remedy for mass unemployment nor by a clear theory of the distribution of total income (GR) and labor income (RT).
The sanctuarization of the GR can be backed on the one hand by a clear theorization of the normal trends in total saving placement income (SI) and total labor income (RT). On the other hand, it can be done with an employment policy based on the removal of obstacles to the full exercise of the EPCE relationship.
17. Favoring overall income among the macronomic aggregates is a message sent to one's compatriots.
It is also a position that breaks with the state of mind that has produced the opaque cult of GDP: "The production of economic wealth in our country is the sum of our income and that of the investments of our non-commercial associations, nothing more, nothing less".