But it would return to the discussion of idea

At each election deadline is the time of the quantifications. For twenty years, it fought more on the cost of the programs on the ideas they contain. Once the conflict was ideological. It played on the type of society they wanted to or on the nature of the regime there. While the substantive objections remain more as we think. But they cross all parties, and this is perhaps why the debate is never far. Unless this is due to the inability of the modern media system to pass anything but a message simplified in the extreme. The failure of the great ideologies in the twentieth century contributed no little to disqualify thought systems that claim to ensure the salvation of humanity in our democracies. No one forgot in which tragedies the sin of pride of ideologues plunged Europe. And everyone has eyes the evidence of the failure of socialism and liberalism to unemployment, exclusion or poverty. The time is therefore to pragmatism, perhaps a little too, and suddenly everything contributes to that figure goes before the idea. Are sent to numbers in figure as ideologies yesterday. The accountant has taken power in the political debate.

Most discussed a proposal from the perspective of morality, justice, efficiency, analyzed over a program from the point of view of coherence, of his philosophy, his ability to transform the economy or society. It said how much it costs. But how to calculate, for example, the cost of compulsory civic service It can be very expensive if the tracing on the former military service and accommodate all classes of age for six months in barracks. But that is really if it module by allowing everyone to choose the modality that suits him best. That will cost the law students who will be a few hours a week of legal assistance for a few years That will cost the hosting of tens of thousands of young people who, each year, will go to help the development of Africa Who will be able to bring out the debate in the maze of the assumptions which, in many cases, change the cost at all And how to decide between the quantifications that accumulate expenditures on the duration of the mandate and those that calculate the annual expenditure Is this the same thing to spend a euro in 2007 and a euro in 2012

The ambiguity of the encryption, it is that it measures the cost without weighing the benefits. Fifteen students classes can be a high expense. But, if it is effective, it may worth because to be hardly quantifiable cost the desocialisation of thousands of children is not least huge. Increase the capacity of a congested infrastructure can bring more to the community the expenditure necessary to achieve even if performance is diffuse. How so much infrastructure expenditures for the economy Not only encryption overshadows the benefits, but it eliminates the concept of investment. It puts on the same plan additional expenditure in research and the expenditure generated by taking into account in the calculation of the pensions of time spent on the education of children. Worse, if we stick to the issue of encryption, increase investment in research is a poor measure since it increases the addition, while doubling the minimum wage is a good measure since it costs nothing to public finances! To better pass the test of the encryption, better also use regulations rather than the redistribution, it is better to prohibit dismissals that reducing burdens.

Of course is that the encryption is always an incentive to develop more economic rationality in politics At least should be that it fits into an economic analysis of the expense, that it distinguished the investment of current expenditure, expenditure productive spending unproductive, to take into account not only direct but also indirect costs, immediate costs, future, financial performance and social performance. But it would return to the discussion of idea. Who really wants