Why does France have systematic difficulties in achieving a budget deficit of less than 3%?

We must already start by pointing out, pending a demonstration to the contrary, that this figure of 3% is totally arbitrary.

So why is it so?!

Public deficits have a function in political discourse: to destroy the legitimacy of states, at least with regard to their regulatory function and their legitimacy to levy taxes on the “big players” in the economy.

Liberals consider that the state is useless, that it is a parasitic organ on activity and that it pollutes business. The state is good for policing and more.

to the liberals, the state seriously damages the natural balance of the economy, which would not fail to regulate itself if the state did not interfere, for example, by preventing wages from being set to the law of supply and demand alone. The Liberals tend to imagine a of teddy bears, but forever not to behave as such .

France has the peculiarity of being considered by the liberals as having a problem the time when the communists were able to impose Social Security (health insurance and pension fund) on an employer who did not bring it much at the Liberation of their collaboration with Nazi Germany.

Since the 1970s, debt has become the scarecrow that is to make people believe that suddenly, we would no longer know how to finance Social Security, that we would no longer have the means to so (when we produce much more wealth inhabitant than in the days when France was not in debt), that this “vestige of communism” would be a ball and chain at the foot of France, which would justify the (soft) demise of the French social model and the (soft) liberalisation of society.

Denis Kessler explained this in his editorial in the newspaper Challenges of 4 October 2007 :

Obviously, Dennis Kessler, who was

2014 and who, on this occasion, received his award from the hands of Emmanuel Macron himself.

is not an isolated case. A similar point of view is documented in the newspaper Des Échos in 2006, in the editorial by Jean-Marc Vittori, who was outraged at our attachment to the preamble of the 1946 constitution

Damn 1946 preamble…

For those who are wondering about this constitutional “pamphlet”, it’s this way:

Generally speaking, debt is a way of saying, “we can no longer finance the…

It costs a dime” and all variations of the same kind, all over the world, and therefore justify limiting national solidarity spending, without ever hindering spending to support large industrial groups.

This explains why deficits and taxes continue to rise, despite the decline in public services (and this answers the question in passing).

Paying interest on money creation (when there is no justification for it), financing large industrial groups, giving them tax gifts, subsidies, selling them uncompetitive sectors, turning a blind eye to fraud (such as the billions lost in

), it’s investment:

Financing health care for all, education for all, transport, the right to a pension for all, aid for the disabled, support for small businesses, etc., is to

…and I’m not…
it’s

debt.

In reality, anyone can get an idea of the economic benefits of a society that effectively protects its citizens, as soon as they stick their nose out of the only book of expenses and revenues of their business.

For example, the disappearance of free health care for all could be a real blight on business if an epidemic ravaged half of the producers of wealth in a given territory, just because they could not afford to go to the doctor or buy the drugs.

On the subject of free education for all, it is perhaps recalling that this is what has made it possible to put a definitive stop to child labour:

The arrival of the

is the decisive factor in the decline of child labour in Europe. School first comes into conflict with the factory: for parents, schooling is expensive, while having a working child improves the ordinary; for industrialists, school hours compete with the authorized working hours. In France, compulsory primary schooling from 6 to 13 years of age is imposed by

in 1880-1881. Sa

allows for a slow change in mentality by making school the

even for the children of workers who will take some time to understand the value of it. The

The introduction of school-attendance-based grants still contributes to this generalization, while compensating poor families for the loss of wages associated with the end of child labour. It is also this measure that has made it possible to significantly (but not totally) reduce domestic and agricultural child labour, which had previously been invisible to the legislature.