Sharing the wealth: a necessity

The subject of wealth sharing is extremely broad and needs to be limited. Indeed, the sharing of wealth refers in the minds of many people to essentially economic notions (division of capital, labor, remuneration of the factors of production that are capital and labor as shown in the article written by Mr. Rémy Prud'homme). However, the notions of sharing and wealth go far beyond this exclusively economic approach that has been characteristic of thought since the 18th^e.

This also often explains the difficulty in communicating, particularly in political debates where people don't put the same meaning behind the same words.

So it's important to define the subject and its angle of approach.

1. Sharing

Definition of sharing: To divide into parts.

Why share? Crisis of values and breakdown of social bonds

When we talk about wealth and because of the strong state intervention in France, the word "redistribution" is more often used than the word sharing. This then supposes a state intervention to correct phenomena of personal accumulation of economic goods, often assimilated to the perverse effects of capitalism. It should be noted, however, that the accumulation of wealth on a personal basis is as old as man. Thus, two people can receive the same capital and be in a totally unequal situation economically a few years later. Everything depends on the intrinsic qualities of each person or the environment in which they find themselves, between the search for security (employee) and the taste for risk (entrepreneur). No form should be banned; between the two extremes, all models coexist and are necessary.

In our Judeo-Christian cultures, the moral obligation to share wealth is not openly questioned (the why), but the problem remains the how. How should sharing be organized in a democratic and multiethnic culture in a developed society? What should be shared, or how should the notions of time (intergenerational approach) and space (local or international) be reintroduced into sharing? And finally, what should be shared?

Responsibility for sharing

The concept of sharing can already be studied from two perspectives: individual or collective. In a country where the State is centralized like France, the temptation is great to delegate the problem of sharing entirely to the State while denying any individual responsibility. However, this would be to ignore the notion of responsibility in sharing and the impact on the means to be implemented. Indeed, these will differ depending on whether the approach is individual and spontaneous or coercive under the action of the State.

In my opinion, the desire to share is above all a matter of individual choice and personal morality. To offset the risk of individual egoism and intrinsic inequality between individuals, structures have been created and states have intervened to organize sharing in space, while thinking about the organization of sharing in time (intergenerational) is still in its infancy.

In France, the sharing (or at least the partial redistribution of wealth) was organized within the framework of churches. Then, after the revolution, the State took over in the context of the industrial revolution with the objective of maintaining social order and mitigating the most glaring disparities. From moral, sharing became a political and economic obligation: Political in order to avoid the risks of social and economic explosion because to be able to sell, there still had to be buyers.

It was during this period that wage labor emerged, based on the existence of a relationship of subordination to an employer who, at the time of the industrial revolution, held capital. We are the heirs of this era, and speeches today still show the strong imprint of Marxist theories in the popular fantasy between, on the one hand, an evil and rich boss and, on the other, plundered salaried workers, all agreeing that the main source of wealth is the company. Is this still the case when society has evolved so profoundly (see the inventory made by Bernstein)?

But the context has changed and become considerably more complex. First, the ideologies of the 19th^e century, whether capitalist or Marxist, have all shown their limits and the border between right and left has become more blurred; a large working class has been replaced by a very heterogeneous and multi-ethnic so-called middle class. 

Then, time contracted and space expanded with the digital revolutions; very recently, politics is trying to regain the upper hand over economics following an international financial crisis.

And in France, a relatively recent phenomenon has emerged: the so-called "social and solidarity" economy, which is replacing state action in many sectors. The main players are associations (status under the 1901 law), and especially mutual societies (banks, insurance companies, complementary mutual societies, which are now mutuals in name only, just like associations) operating as real companies while not being subject to the same controls and where the search for financial balance at all costs comes up against ethical questions; we could talk about the search for profitable sharing.

Hence the first reflection: who should organize sharing in today's world:

• Should it be limited to borders? If not, what is the right level of organization: the region, the state, Europe, international organizations?
• In France, on what structure or entity should the organization of sharing be based: the individual, charitable organizations, the State, social economy associations?

What to share?

Sharing can be done at three levels:

• The sharing of material goods,
• Sharing of intangible assets: Access to so-called public goods, notably education and health,
• Sharing the results of economic wealth creation.

Many things are de facto shared "for free" in a country like France: language, history, lifestyle... everything we call culture. Sharing thus indirectly raises the problem of integrating emigrants. Do we want to share our culture with them or impose it on them in order to preserve a national identity that is so important in times of war, a national identity that, moreover, and regardless of the country, is diluted in daily multicultural exchanges?

It is therefore important to define the "wealth" we are talking about without necessarily limiting ourselves to the sharing of economic wealth produced by businesses.

• Wealth

Definition of wealth: What wealth are we talking about?

Adam Smith's famous Wealth of Nations immediately springs to mind, a classic document in economics and the founder of economic liberalism.

Since this period (18^th century), the notion of wealth is based on the continuous progress of science and technology and therefore a purely economic idea of well-being has emerged whose level is measured in terms of the level and rate of growth of production and consumption. Producing and consuming more and more and ensuring that the poorest countries adopt the lifestyle of the countries of the North. The ideologies of the 20^e century offer a range of possibilities to maximize technical progress and economic growth, using alternatively (or in parallel) market mechanisms (liberal) or planning (Marxist) depending on the period. Both systems have shown their limits and we are facing an international crisis: food, financial, environmental and values.

In fact, both economic theories focused on behavior and assumed that humans were only happy if they could satisfy all their desires through the sale and purchase of goods. The priority shifted from happiness to freedom. But can human beings be limited to homo economicus? Indeed, wealth cannot be reduced to an economic concept or purchasing power, just as the power of a state can no longer be reduced to the strength of its army, as was still the case before the fall of the Berlin Wall.

So what is wealth?

Wikipedia: There wealth can be defined as the abundance of goods or income. But above all, it constitutes the state in which one finds oneself whose resources allow one to satisfy all of his needs. The rich therefore generally possess more resources than what he needs. In contrast, poverty can be defined as the inability to meet part of one's needs. The poor lack a certain amount of resources to satisfy all of his needs. These resources are of several kinds: health, education, etc.

I found this definition interesting, as it refers to the concepts of needs and resources, and indeed what we're trying to resolve in the problem of wealth sharing is the matching of needs and resources.

Concept of needs

Visit needs are located at the level of interaction between the individual and the environment. There are several ways to classify needs, including Maslow's pyramid (physiological needs, security, social needs, esteem of others and self-esteem), but this is not the only classification.

The notion of needs varies in time and space, and needs have evolved in a country like France, where the notion of consumption has been replaced by the notion of seeking well-being or even happiness.

Hence the questions: What needs must be met here and now? Is consumer society outdated?

But because needs are not only primary and economic, since 1990, we no longer measure a country's poverty based on its GDP but on a human development index of which the economic measurement is only one component among the 3, namely:

• there health /longevity (measured by life expectancy at birth), which indirectly measures the satisfaction of essential material needs such as access to healthy food, drinking water, decent housing, good hygiene and medical care.
• THE know or education level. It is measured by the adult literacy rate (percentage of 15 year olds and over who can easily write and understand a short, simple text dealing with everyday life) and the gross enrollment rate (combined measure of rates for primary, secondary and higher education). It reflects the satisfaction of intangible needs such as the ability to participate in decision-making in the workplace or in society.
• THE standard of living (logarithm of gross domestic product per capita in purchasing power parity), in order to encompass elements of quality of life that are not described by the first two indices such as mobility or access to culture.

OECD countries add a fourth indicator, the exclusion indicator, represented by the percentage of people in long-term unemployment.

Wealth is therefore represented by the set of resources that allow us to satisfy these four components; it cannot be reduced to economic wealth. What would be the point of being rich in monetary terms if healthcare systems did not exist or if our children were illiterate? This would certainly be the surest way to return to the state of war that exists in developing countries.

Also reducing the theme of wealth sharing to a discussion on the sharing of wealth produced between labor and capital would be too reductive in my opinion, firstly, because labor or capital produces income and not wealth and because this income is individual for labor and individual, financial or fiscal for capital and finally, there are systems of massive redistribution (levies, etc.)

Economic indicators such as GDP therefore appear to be very incomplete (see the Siglitz Commission report of September 2008, which recommends measuring "well-being" and which would include health, education or non-market activities such as childcare, or what is called the "social economy" sector, which is currently experiencing strong growth).

Furthermore, can we talk about wealth creation, even economic, at this level with the current drop in productivity and a Keynesian-type economy resisting only thanks to budget deficits. We are far from the liberal theories of Adam Smith, fortunately because overall France is resisting the crisis better than the United States, although we are currently witnessing a liberal-type dismantling (restructuring) of social services, health, etc. in France, which, as Bernstein points out in his article, contributes to the perplexity of the French at the moment.

What are the riches to be shared in France?

France's wealth is therefore to be found outside its economic wealth based on companies. In this respect, it's interesting to note that the French fabric is made up mainly of SMEs, whether in the construction, healthcare or retail sectors, rather than in heavy industry.

Isn't France's wealth rather its quality of life: organic farming, SMEs whose research and development budgets should be supported, development of digital technologies in education, development of health centers close to citizens, organizing spaces where all citizens can meet and exchange (compulsory military service no longer exists, one of the rare places where people from different social classes can still meet curiously remains political parties), the establishment of forums... There are many avenues for reflection.

Conclusion

Before talking about sharing, I think it's important to define what kind of wealth we're talking about. Indeed, wealth can no longer be defined as the accumulation and consumption of economic goods, and sharing as the transfer of monetary flows to alleviate the most serious disparities in society or appease the most discontented.

This comes down to discussing the type of society we want. Major trends have emerged over the past forty years: a questioning of consumerism and unbridled liberalism, an awareness of interdependence with other countries (globalization), etc. Crises have led to a proliferation of debates on this subject, with the search for a new type of society based on well-being, or even happiness, which would become the sign of a "rich" society. France has historically been a pioneer in these changes in thinking.

What can we propose? France's wealth lies in its quality of life. At a time of major ecological challenges, its position is unique but requires a cultural shift to overcome blockages and gloom:

• On sharing, a call for individual responsibility and civic engagement, not only in the form of money but also of time (in the United States, the participation of high school students in civic life is indicated in school reports).
• On the needs, analyze the needs in terms of education, health, standard of living: what do citizens want and what are they offered (level gaps between schools, difficult access to the health system that one can or cannot pay for elsewhere, the real wealth in the medical field is having the right information, access to culture, etc., end of corporations)
• On wealth, identify resources. France is a country of services, a country renowned for its quality of life. Based on this observation, policies can be developed:
  • Agriculture
  • Buildings: insulation policy, access to housing
  • New territorial balance with the creation of local social services and the reestablishment of the notion of public service
  • Relaunch of research and development in new sectors of sustainable development
  • Making the best use of the digital revolution (especially in the areas of education, health, information and political consultation: participatory and citizen democracy)
  • Relaunch cultural policy
  • Preserving natural heritage (tourism sector)
  • And also to resume its place in international organizations (including European ones) where many issues are discussed.