We can move that part of the text, however I am not really sure if we have that kind of high level cooperation at the moment.
On the China issue - I normally would agree with the “regimes” solution, but honestly China and trade with China is basically a very long term program point in itself, so it is imho helpful to be very direct here. I am however fully open to the change.
Stock buybacks extract value from corporations rather than creating a cycle of continuous productivity growth, through which workers, consumers, and the economy at large benefit. The US has already introduced a tax on stock buybacks.
Yes, agree with the direction
Yes, in the current situation buybacks are of course an issue (or were last year, less now in QT times) but not because of the nature of buybacks themselves but because of the hasty QE. That’s also why some countries do/think of introducing tax on it to mitigate the negative consequences and not to target buybacks as such. I know it might not seem that way but in general taxing buybacks will hurt successful venture businesses: I am sure you know that companies raise capital differently according to where they are in their life cycle, venture business issue stocks since they don’t have credit rating etc. and if they are successful and they grow to medium size it is more profitable to issue corporate bonds (and buy back its stocks). To villainize buybacks in general is just punishing businesses when they move from venture to successful and it goes against promoting supportive competitive environment. Big corporates do not do buybacks in general, they are past that part of their development unless there is an environment of cheap corporate credit and then they exploit it to cheaply raise their value. That’s why a general tax on buybacks is in my mind harmful to smaller businesses and at this point it’s too late to stop misuse of cheap corporate credit anyways. But if we want to specifically signal that we are trying to stop misuse of buybacks to publicly finance increase of value of stocks/companies then sure but I am afraid that might be too specific for our program. But I think I am on board with your way of thinking in general on buybacks, definitely.
With China (a specific country relationship), wouldn’t it then be more of a topic for international relations / international politics though? Just asking…
You’re right though that we should try to get more focus on the “competition enforcement agencies” into the text, definitely agree.
Companies have been allowed to repurchase their shares on the open market with virtually no regulatory limits since 1982. Stock buybacks artificially drive up share prices is creating profits without prosperity. We are not arguing for a ban on open-market stock buybacks, although their overuse undermines the economy’s health. We propose to tax stock buybacks like income.
Growth/degrowth and new (externality included) metrics are related topics. I would go for growth if what is measured is not just the GDP. But as it is now growth means growth in amounts of currencies, even at the cost of the environment, of health services, of suicidal tendencies, whatever. So: let’s please not take the dogmatic stance.
I don’t mind if Tax on Kerosine is in economics, transportation or ecologics better yet 3 times so we do not forget where it is when we want to quote it. - as long as it is clearly there. One reason to in any case have it under economics, is that the tax aims to level the playing field in a market (i.e. the transportation market), where at this time air-transport is heavily favored by NOT having this tax.
And the way the first paragraph does talk about other metrics as well, you don’t think that goes in your direction?
So how would you imagine it then, the same level of tax as is on dividends? Also, would you have any reference/background to position that buybacks are harmful in general? I am not trying to be difficult just interested in understanding your position better, that’s all.
Honestly, I still think it would better fit elsewhere even if it is about “market efficiency”. That’s not just a topic for economy/economics.
To finish the economy section for CEEP, I invite you to a conference on June 2 at 20:00 CEST at https://jitsi.pirati.cz/CEEP-eco.
Please post your further texts in the Discourse until Thursday, so that they can be commented or completed.
Regarding my controversial thesis that we need to recognize that growth is finite, allow me to point out that this is a scientific fact that we need to grasp.
Which growth is meant? In the newly proposed metrics? - not clear.
More important: Bastians remark that we should, in the tekst, recognize the fact that growth is finite.
You could maybe provide your sources and material, texts, on the finitude of growth, so we can get going and we won’t have to dig through all that in the live call in which we are supposed to decide and finish the tailoring of our proposal
Sharing this here also, away from our private loops :
Budgetary policy is an essential tool of economic policy. The current budgetary rules are targeted on preventing deficits and prevent members states to react in times of crisis.
We propose to discard and replace them with long term budget sustainability assessments, and to punish both excessive deficit and surplus.
This will allow member states to implement investment policies in spite of the defense, environmental and social challenges of our time, as well as encourage the balancing of their savings and consumption which will foster a dynamic internal market.
Given our difficulties on the preamble, my two cents would be on the removal of " economic growth focused on" in the first sentence. It is included in long term development anyway, and the “long term” kinda suggest potential growth as well, idk.
Our economic program aims to support sustainable long-term development, broad improvements in quality of life, and fostering a competitive, fair, and inventive economic environment. In this regard, we believe it is necessary to consider a broader set of economic metrics besides mere immediate gross productivity. Such measures must capture the development of long-term economic opportunities, well-being, environmental and social sustainability, and successful collaboration across the whole EU.
I support that 
.
Another suggestion, get rid of the “mere immediate” in front of “gross productivity”, because I really can’t see what’s the purpose of these adjectives in here.
Our economic program aims to support sustainable long-term development, broad improvements in quality of life, and fostering a competitive, fair, and inventive economic environment. In this regard, we believe it is necessary to consider a broader set of economic metrics besides immediate gross productivity. Such measures must capture the development of long-term economic opportunities, well-being, environmental and social sustainability, and successful collaboration across the whole EU.
Please, for continuing this discussion and finishing the text, continue to the channel: CEEP - Economy and Finance Chapter is ready