Economic growth requires capital accumulation

The crisis at the head of the Vinci Group led to the resignation of its President Antoine Zacharias. It was greedy: the drop of water which has straw is a premium of 8 million he requested for the operation of taking control of ASF. Little, seems, in comparison of what he reported its stock, extraordinarily valued by the outbreak of the da Vinci (multiply by 7 in seven years) title. This drama of the business world has provided an opportunity to consider the remuneration of company bosses.

Bruno Frappat, in "La Croix" on June 2, title to the subject: "cash Culture". The President of the Medef has taken his distance. Claude Bébéar also. "Les Echos", in the section "Filter", wary of a "monarchical derives. That Act. But it should not be that this unpleasant episode leads to throw the baby with the bath water. The enrichment of a very high level manager is not necessarily scandalous, or poor economically. The possibility to raise a significant capital in managing well is a very large company, under certain conditions, favourable to economic development.

Economic growth requires capital accumulation. For a part, this capital is the heritage of merely affluent, even modest households who have through investment funds. This mainly allows the operation of large companies. SMEs, they are rather family: base one, or to buy and develop one, be rich greatly facilitates things. The problem is: are there enough people with the qualifications required, and with adequate capital, that is denser tissue of medium-sized enterprises which depends to a significant economic dynamism, and hence employment

The employee "boss" of a large firm is not always the character appropriate to the creation or the development of an SME, but the likelihood is thus is significantly higher than that posed by the winners of the lottery. It is therefore not necessarily a bad thing that these large-scale managers come to have a day of money to create their own business. Knowing that the operation of an economic system like that of a political system requires a concentration of resources in the hands of some, could find worse than average wholesale capital allocation to the Presidents of very large companies.

There are other ways to wealth: the remuneration of Zidane and Depardieu are of the same order as those of a CEO of the CAC 40. If it is inadmissible to win about 10 million euros per year, why would it more acceptable for them than for a manager You can also win on the stock exchange: a sustainably happy speculator would be inherently morally superior to a great boss You can still have inherited a few hectares, the extension of an agglomeration helping, in coming to sell at price of gold. Can be purchased three francs six canvases as an unknown artist and get a few decades later, the head of a fortune. Short, if one condemns massive enrichment of company bosses, there are many others to condemn.

It is enriched by leading a group with the tens of thousands of employees, or otherwise, a problem arises: the use made of this fortune. The Calvinist ethic laid great stress on this point: the wealthy man is responsible for what he done to his capital, as the responsible administrative or political high level is what he does his power. If the first only cares to raise even more, if the latter have for main goal the maintaining and increasing their power, then their behaviour is immoral. There a moment where, as in the film "my fair Lady", man of affairs must choose between speculate or build "of good big boats", spend money only to earn more, or use it to develop the activity by removing the benefit required so it is not a straw fire.

The Catholic Church has condemned centuries lending at interest. This was not warranted, but the idea whose clumsy extrapolation has led to this prohibition was excellent: the money is not to produce the money, it is to organize the economic aspects of life in society. Having wealth has the responsibility to put men to work, and if it is in this sense it is economically good and morally just he releases the benefit which they will be able to fill this role permanently.

Back to the great managers. Those who find themselves later in a career, at the head of a 100 million euros, can play a most useful role: be a "business angels" funding the development of the "gazelles", these business growth which our economy has the greatest need. If they contribute to the common prosperity, then the concentration of capital in their hands is a good thing.

Capitalism is in itself neither moral nor immoral. There are. This is the man who made a use either moral, is immoral, its function of manager or as a capitalist.