L'impôt confisqué

Je recommande chaudement la lecture d'un petit ouvrage intitulé "L'impôt confisqué" et publié par Martin Collet chez Odile Jacob (collection Corpus). L'auteur, un juriste, y décrit en moins de 100 pages l'évolution de la pratique du Conseil Constitutionnel, qui censure de plus en plus souvent la législation fiscale en France. Le livre est très clair et argumenté. Il montre d'abord comment le Conseil Constitutionnel a de lui même élargi sa mission en 1971 en décidant qu'il lui fallait contrôler les lois non seulement sur le fondement du texte de la Constitution de 1958, mais aussi sur la base de différents principes inscrits dans la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen du 26 août 1789 et dans le Préambule de la Constitution de 1946! Un beau "coup de force interprétatif" comme l'appelle l'auteur.

Le livre présente à la fois les avantages et inconvénients de cette pratique. Parmi les avantages, celui de l'évaluation de la cohérence du dispositif étudié au regard de ses motifs. Cela oblige à une certaine transparence et sincérité de ces motifs, et met un frein aux dérives clientélistes. Le livre met cependant en exergue une dérive assez récente des pratiques du Conseil Constitutionnel, quand il décide arbitrairement si un impôt est "confiscatoire" ou non. Les exemples concrets donnés semblent établir qu'un taux marginal d'imposition de 68% est acceptable, alors qu'un taux marginal de 75% ne l'est pas. L'auteur du livre n'y trouve aucune rationalité juridique, et de mon côté je n'y vois aucune rationalité économique. En outre, pourquoi ce concentrer sur les taux marginaux plutôt que moyens si l'objectif est de juger du caractère confiscatoire du prélèvement?

Ce bref résumé ne rend pas justice à cet excellent livre, dont je conseille la lecture à toute personne intéressée par l'économie publique (et politique) en France.

Economics of climate change

I am tidying up my stack of interesting newspaper articles before going on vacations (and remaining offline!).

Here are several interesting pieces on the economics of climate change:

A. My colleague (and boss ;-) Christian Gollier points out (in French, but with graphs) that we are still emitting more and more carbon in the atmosphere, because the real progresses in the First World are overtaken by changes in the developing world. Here are the graphs:

1 - La consommation d'énergies propres est en augmentation... mais moins que celle des énergies fossiles

2 - L'intensité de la consommation en carbone n'a pas diminué depuis 1999

3 - La consommation mondiale de charbon atteint des records

4 - Les énergies propres sont en pleine expansion... mais ne représentent qu'une petite partie de la consommation

5 - Conclusion : les émissions de dioxyde de carbone sont toujours en expansion

Read more at http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/5-graphiques-pour-comprendre-quel-point-monde-echoue-maitriser-consommation-energies-christian-gollier-1629698.html#yY4rzRUtlGpcMMZ9.99


B. A nice piece showing all the potential downsides of natural gas in the US: although it has a smaller carbon footprint than coal, it often replaces nuclear energy, it is often burned off as a byproduct of oil fracking, it escapes unburned, it reduces the growth of wind energy, etc.

C. How the North- East of the US has cut emissions and enjoyed growth (no excuse anymore for the other US states not to join their cap-and-trade program then!)

D. How a recent deal between Russia and China to bring natural gas from the former to the latter has played out.

E. The challenges awaiting the US to reduce their emissions.

F. The climate scientist and campaigner James E. Hansen pressing the climate case for ... nuclear energy!

G. Carbon tax versus cap-and-trade in Australia.

H. The incredibly dumb German energy policy, attaining what is close to a Pareto worsening allocation.

Theory of value

Superb article making three points:

1. How De Beers has managed to corner the market for diamonds,
2. How it has manipulated consumers' preferences for these pieces of carbon,
3. That diamonds are very bad investments.

Diamonds Are Bullshit

American males enter adulthood through a peculiar rite of passage - they spend most of their savings on a shiny piece of rock. They could invest the money in assets that will compound over time and someday provide a nest egg. Instead, they trade that money for a diamond ring, which isn’t much of an asset at all. As soon as you leave the jeweler with a diamond, it loses over 50% of its value. 

Americans exchange diamond rings as part of the engagement process, because in 1938 De Beers decided that they would like us to. Prior to a stunningly successful marketing campaign 1938, Americans occasionally exchanged engagement rings, but wasn’t a pervasive occurrence. Not only is the demand for diamonds a marketing invention, but diamonds aren’t actually that rare. Only by carefully restricting the supply has De Beers kept the price of a diamond high.

Countless American dudes will attest that the societal obligation to furnish a diamond engagement ring is both stressful and expensive. But here’s the thing - this obligation only exists because the company that stands to profit from it willed it into existence.  

So here is a modest proposal: Let’s agree that diamonds are bullshit and reject their role in the marriage process. Let’s admit that as a society we got tricked for about century into coveting sparkling pieces of carbon, but it’s time to end the nonsense.

The Concept of Intrinsic Value

In finance, there is concept called intrinsic value. An asset’s value is essentially driven by the (discounted) value of the future cash that asset will generate. For example, when Hertz buys a car, its value is the profit they get from renting it out and selling the car at the end of its life (the “terminal value”). For Hertz, a car is an investment. When you buy a car, unless you make money from it somehow, its value corresponds to its resale value. Since a car is a depreciating asset, the amount of value that the car loses over its lifetime is a very real expense you pay.

A diamond is a depreciating asset masquerading as an investment. There is a common misconception that jewelry and precious metals are assets that can store value, appreciate, and hedge against inflation. That’s not wholly untrue.

Gold and silver are commodities that can be purchased on financial markets. They can appreciate and hold value in times of inflation. You can even hoard gold under your bed and buy gold coins and bullion (albeit at a ~10% premium to market rates). If you want to hoard gold jewelry however, there is  typically a 100-400% retail markup so that’s probably not a wise investment. 

But with that caveat in mind, the market for gold is fairly liquid and gold is fungible - you can trade one large piece of gold for ten smalls ones like you can a ten dollar bill for a ten one dollar bills. These characteristics make it a feasible potential investment.

Diamonds, however, are not an investment. The market for them is neither liquid nor are they fungible.

The first test of a liquid market is whether you can resell a diamond. In a famous piece published by The Atlantic in 1982, Edward Epstein explains why you can’t sell used diamonds for anything but a pittance:

Retail jewelers, especially the prestigious Fifth Avenue stores, prefer not to buy back diamonds from customers, because the offer they would make would most likely be considered ridiculously low. The “keystone,” or markup, on a diamond and its setting may range from 100 to 200 percent, depending on the policy of the store; if it bought diamonds back from customers, it would have to buy them back at wholesale prices. 

…

Most jewelers would prefer not to make a customer an offer that might be deemed insulting and also might undercut the widely held notion that diamonds go up in value. Moreover, since retailers generally receive their diamonds from wholesalers on consignment, and need not pay for them until they are sold, they would not readily risk their own cash to buy diamonds from customers.

When you buy a diamond, you buy it at retail, which is a 100% to 200% markup. If you want to resell it, you have to pay less than wholesale to incent a diamond buyer to risk their own capital on the purchase. Given the large markup, this will mean a substantial loss on your part. The same article puts some numbers around the dilemma:

Because of the steep markup on diamonds, individuals who buy retail and in effect sell wholesale often suffer enormous losses. For example, Brod estimates that a half-carat diamond ring, which might cost $2,000 at a retail jewelry store, could be sold for only $600 at Empire.

Some diamonds are perhaps investment grade, but you probably don’t own one, even if you spent a lot.

The appraisers at Empire Diamonds examine thousands of diamonds a month but rarely turn up a diamond of extraordinary quality. Almost all the diamonds they find are slightly flawed, off-color, commercial-grade diamonds. The chief appraiser says, “When most of these diamonds were purchased, American women were concerned with the size of the diamond, not its intrinsic quality.” He points out that the setting frequently conceals flaws, and adds, “The sort of flawless, investment-grade diamond one reads about is almost never found in jewelry.”

As with televisions and mattresses, the diamond classification scheme is extremely complicated. Diamonds are not fungible and can’t be easily exchanged with each other. Diamond professionals use the 4 C’s when classifying and pricing diamonds: carats, color, cut, and clarity. Due to the complexity of these 4 dimensions, it’s hard to make apples to apples comparisons between diamonds.

But even when looking at the value of one stone, professionals seem like they’re just making up diamond prices:

In 1977, for example, Jewelers’ Circular Keystone polled a large number of retail dealers and found a difference of over 100 percent in offers for the same quality of investment-grade diamonds.

So let’s be very clear, a diamond is not an investment. You might want one because it looks pretty or its status symbol to have a “massive rock”, but not because it will store value or appreciate in value.

But among all the pretty, shiny things out there - gold and silver, rubies and emeralds - why do Americans covet diamond engagement rings in the first place?

A Diamond is Forever a Measure of your Manhood

"The reason you haven’t felt it is because it doesn’t exist. What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons."

Don Draper, Madmen

We like diamonds because Gerold M. Lauck told us to. Until the mid 20th century, diamond engagement rings were a small and dying industry in America. Nor had the concept really taken hold in Europe. Moreover, with Europe on the verge of war, it didn’t seem like a promising place to invest. 

Not surprisingly, the American market for diamond engagement rings began to shrink during the Great Depression. Sales volume declined and the buyers that remained purchased increasingly smaller stones. But the US market for engagement rings was still 75% of De Beers’ sales. If De Beers was going to grow, it had to reverse the trend.

And so, in 1938, De Beers turned to Madison Avenue for help. They hired Gerold Lauck and the N. W. Ayer advertising agency, who commissioned a study with some astute observations. Men were the key to the market:

Since “young men buy over 90% of all engagement rings” it would be crucial to inculcate in them the idea that diamonds were a gift of love: the larger and finer the diamond, the greater the expression of love. Similarly, young women had to be encouraged to view diamonds as an integral part of any romantic courtship.

However, there was a dilemma. Many smart and prosperous women didn’t want diamond engagement rings. They wanted to be different. 

The millions of brides and brides-to-be are subjected to at least two important pressures that work against the diamond engagement ring. Among the more prosperous, there is the sophisticated urge to be different as a means of being smart…. the lower-income groups would like to show more for the money than they can find in the diamond they can afford…

Lauck needed to sell a product that people either did not want or could not afford. His solution would haunt men for generations. He advised that De Beers market diamonds as astatus symbol:

 ”The substantial diamond gift can be made a more widely sought symbol of personal and family success — an expression of socio-economic achievement.”

…

"Promote the diamond as one material object which can reflect, in a very personal way, a man’s … success in life."

The next time you look at a diamond, consider this. Nearly every American marriage begins with a diamond because a bunch of rich white men in the 1940s convinced everyone that its size determines your self worth. They created this convention - that unless a man purchases (an intrinsically useless) diamond, his life is a failure - while sitting in a room, racking their brains on how to sell diamonds that no one wanted. 

With this insight, they began marketing diamonds as a symbol of status and love:

Movie idols, the paragons of romance for the mass audience, would be given diamonds to use as their symbols of indestructible love. In addition, the agency suggested offering stories and society photographs to selected magazines and newspapers which would reinforce the link between diamonds and romance. Stories would stress the size of diamonds that celebrities presented to their loved ones, and photographs would conspicuously show the glittering stone on the hand of a well-known woman. 

Fashion designers would talk on radio programs about the “trend towards diamonds” that Ayer planned to start. The Ayer plan also envisioned using the British royal family to help foster the romantic allure of diamonds. 

Even the royal family was in on the hoax! The campaign paid immediate dividends. Within 3 years, despite the Great Depression, diamond sales in the US increased 55%! Twenty years later, an entire generation believed that an expensive diamond ring was a necessary step in the marriage process. 

The De Beers marketing machine continued to churn out the hits. They circulated marketing materials suggesting, apropos of nothing, that a man should spend one month’s salary on a diamond ring. It worked so well that De Beers arbitrarily decided to increase the suggestion to two months salary. That’s why you think that you need to spend two month’s salary on a ring - because the suppliers of the product said so.

Today, over 80% of women in the US receive diamond rings when they get engaged. The domination is complete.

A History of Market Manipulation

What, you might ask, could top institutionalizing demand for a useless product out of thin air? Monopolizing the supply of diamonds for over a century to make that useless product extremely expensive. You see, diamonds aren’t really even that rare.

Before 1870, diamonds were very rare. They typically ended up in a Maharaja’s crown or a royal necklace. In 1870, enormous deposits of diamonds were discovered in Kimberley, South Africa. As diamonds flooded the market, the financiers of the mines realized they were making their own investments worthless. As they mined more and more diamonds, they became less scarce and their price dropped.

The diamond market may have bottomed out were it not for an enterprising individual by the name of Cecil Rhodes. He began buying up mines in order to control the output and keep the price of diamonds high. By 1888, Rhodes controlled the entire South African diamond supply, and in turn, essentially the entire world supply. One of the companies he acquired was eponymously named after its founders, the De Beers brothers.

Building a diamond monopoly isn’t easy work. It requires a balance of ruthlessly punishing and cooperating with competitors, as well as a very long term view. For example, in 1902, prospectors discovered a massive mine in South Africa that contained as many diamonds as all of De Beers’ mines combined. The owners initially refused to join the De Beers cartel, joining three years later after new owner Ernest Oppenheimer recognized that a competitive market for diamonds would be disastrous for the industry:

Common sense tells us that the only way to increase the value of diamonds is to make them scarce, that is to reduce production.

Here’s how De Beers has controlled the diamond supply chain for most of the last century. De Beers owns most of the diamond mines. For mines that they don’t own, they have historically bought out all the diamonds, intimidating or co-opting any that think of resisting their monopoly. They then transfer all the diamonds over to the Central Selling Organization (CSO), which they own. 

The CSO sorts through the diamonds, puts them in boxes and presents them to the 250 partners that they sell to. The price of the diamonds and quantity of diamonds are non-negotiable - it’s take it or leave it. Refuse your boxes and you’re out of the diamond industry.

For most of the 20th century, this system has controlled 90% of the diamond trade and been solely responsible for the inflated price of diamonds. However, as Oppenheimer took over leadership at De Beers, he keenly assessed the primary operational risk that the companyfaced:

Our only risk is the sudden discovery of new mines, which human nature will work recklessly to the detriment of us all.

Because diamonds are “valuable”, there will always be the risk of entrepreneurs finding new sources of diamonds. Although controlling the discoverers of new mines often actually meant working with communists. In 1957, the Soviet Union discovered a massive deposit of diamonds in Siberia. Though the diamonds were a bit on the smallish side, De Beers still had to swoop in and buy all of them from the Soviets, lest they risk the supply being unleashed on the world market. 

Later, in Australia, a large supply of colored diamonds was discovered. When the mine refused to join the syndicate, De Beers retaliated by unloading massive amounts of colored diamonds that were similar to the Australian ones to drive down their price. Similarly, in the 1970s, some Israeli members of the CSO started stockpiling the diamonds they were allocated rather than reselling them. This made it difficult for De Beers to control the market price and would eventually cause a deflation in diamond prices when the hoarders released their stockpile. Eventually, these offending members were banned from the CSO, essentially shutting them out from the diamond business.

In 2000, De Beers announced that they were relinquishing their monopoly on the diamond business. They even settled a US Antitrust lawsuit related to price fixing industrial diamonds to the tune of $10 million (How generous! What is that, the price of one investment banker’s engagement ring?). 

Today, De Beers hold on the industry supply chain is less strong. And yet, price continue to rise as new deposits haven’t been found recently and demand for diamonds is increasing inIndia and China. For now, it’s less necessary that the company monopolize the supply chain because its lie that a diamond is a proxy for a man’s worth in life has infected the rest of the world.

Conclusion

“I didn’t get a bathroom door that looks like a wall by being bad at business”

Jack Donaghy,30 Rock

We covet diamonds in America for a simple reason: the company that stands to profit from diamond sales decided that we should. De Beers’ marketing campaign single handedly made diamond rings the measure of one’s success in America. Despite its complete lack of inherent value, the company manufactured an image of diamonds as a status symbol. And to keep the price of diamonds high, despite the abundance of new diamond finds, De Beers executed the most effective monopoly of the 20th century. Okay, we get it De Beers, you guys are really good at business! 

The purpose of this post was to point out that diamond engagement rings are a lie - they’re an invention of Madison Avenue and De Beers. This post has completely glossed over the sheer amount of human suffering that we’ve caused by believing this lie: conflict diamondsfunding wars, supporting apartheid for decades with our money, and pillaging the earth to find shiny carbon. And while we’re on the subject, why is it that women need to be asked and presented with a ring in order to get married? Why can’t they ask and do the presenting?

Diamonds are not actually scarce, make a terrible investment, and are purely valuable as a status symbol.

Diamonds, to put it delicately, are bullshit.

This post was written by Rohin Dhar. He has a very patient wife.

Survivor bias

A nice example from WWII taken from this longer article:

The military looked at the bombers that had returned from enemy territory. They recorded where those planes had taken the most damage. Over and over again, they saw the bullet holes tended to accumulate along the wings, around the tail gunner, and down the center of the body. Wings. Body. Tail gunner. Considering this information, where would you put the extra armor? Naturally, the commanders wanted to put the thicker protection where they could clearly see the most damage, where the holes clustered. But Wald said no, that would be precisely the wrong decision. Putting the armor there wouldn’t improve their chances at all. 

Do you understand why it was a foolish idea? The mistake, which Wald saw instantly, was that the holes showed where the planes were strongest. The holes showed where a bomber could be shot and still survive the flight home, Wald explained. After all, here they were, holes and all. It was the planes that weren’t there that needed extra protection, and they had needed it in places that these planes had not. The holes in the surviving planes actually revealed the locations that needed the least additional armor. Look at where the survivors are unharmed, he said, and that’s where these bombers are most vulnerable; that’s where the planes that didn’t make it back were hit.

Rentes de situation en France

Encore un rapport qui pointe du doigt des monopoles à supprimer. Peut-être un jour sera-t-il suivit d'effets ...?

Professions réglementées : le palmarès des plus grosses rémunérations

• www.lemonde.fr

Rendu en mars 2013 par l'Inspection générale des finances (IGF), ce rapport confidentiel était soigneusement rangé dans un coffre-fort de Bercy pour garder le secret sur les recommandations ultra-sensibles qu'il recèle.

La bombe a commencé à exploser, il y a quelques jours, dans le journal Les Echos qui a dévoilé une partie de son contenu, dans deux éditions distinctes. Le Monde, qui a pu consulter la synthèse de ce document découpé en plusieurs tomes et totalisant quelque 700 pages, en révèle aujourd'hui d'autres extraits.

RENTES DE SITUATION

Le rapport de l'IGF examine le fonctionnement de 37 professions dites « réglementées », c'est-à-dire dont l'accès et l'exercice est conditionné à la possession de qualifications spécifiques. Ces professions couvrent un spectre extrêmement large : de l'administrateur judiciaire au serrurier, en passant par l'avocat ou le chauffeur de taxi.

Plusieurs de ces métiers sont accusés de bénéficier de rentes de situation grâce à notre corpus législatif. Un privilège pointé du doigt, dès 1960, par le comité Armand-Rueff. La commission Attali l'avait également dénoncé, au début du quinquennat de Nicolas Sarkozy. Aujourd'hui, le gouvernement affirme vouloir s'attaquer aux avantages dont bénéficie cette nébuleuse de corporations.

Le ministre de l'économie, Arnaud Montebourg, a déclaré, le 10 juillet, qu'il va prendre « une trentaine de mesures destinées à mettre fin aux monopoles et à restituer aux Français l'équivalent de 6 milliards d'euros depouvoir d'achat ».

LES GREFFIERS DE TRIBUNAUX, 29 000 EUROS

Dans ce contexte, le rapport de l'IGF peut s'avérer utile à la réflexion de l'exécutif. Il formule plusieurs dizaines de pistes de réformes. « La mise en œuvre d'options de cette nature serait susceptible, à un horizon de cinq ans, degénérer (…) un surcroît d'activité d'au moins 0,5 point de PIB, plus de 120 000 emplois supplémentaires et un surcroît d'exportation de 0,25 point de PIB », écrit l'IGF.

Les préconisations du rapport poursuivent plusieurs logiques : accroître la concurrence et la liberté de s'installer dans ces secteurs, renforcer les droits du consommateur, rapprocher les tarifs pratiqués du coût de revient.

L'IGF constate que les 37 activités passées au crible se portent bien, globalement. Le bénéfice net avant impôt s'élève en moyenne à 19,2 % du chiffre d'affaires, soit un niveau de rentabilité 2,4 fois supérieur à celui mesuré dans le reste de l'économie.

Comme le révèle notre infographie, cinq professions gagnent en moyenne plus de 10 000 euros par mois, les greffiers de tribunaux de commerce se situant en tête du palmarès (avec un revenu mensuel net médian de 29 177 euros, c'est-à-dire que la moitié des greffiers perçoivent moins que cette somme et l'autre moitié touchent plus).

Or ces niveaux de rémunération « ne s'expliquent pas toujours par la durée de la formation, l'ampleur des investissement à réaliser, ni par l'existence d'un risque », juge l'IGF. Une litote qui signifie, en clair, que la santé éclatante de certains de ces 37 métiers résulte, pour une bonne part, des règles particulières auxquels ils sont soumis. Il convient donc de changer les textes. Passage en revue des principales préconisations de l'inspection des finances.

• Casser des monopoles

L'inspection propose d'assouplir ou de mettre fin à plusieurs monopoles d'activité. Ainsi, les pharmaciens ne seraient plus les seuls à vendre des médicaments « à prescription facultative » (aspirine, etc.). Une idée défendue depuis plusieurs années par des enseignes de la grande distribution – Leclerc en tête.

L'ouverture à la concurrence des cours de conduite automobile est également mise en avant. Les enseignants de conduite auraient la possibilité d'assurer cette prestation, en dehors du centre agréé qui les emploie en temps ordinaire.

A l'heure actuelle, les transports sanitaires (de patients en position assise) sont réservés aux ambulanciers et aux chauffeurs de taxis. Un service qui« peut être ouvert à d'autres acteurs sélectionnés dans le cadre de procédures concurrentielles ordinaires », estiment les auteurs du rapport.

Pour l'IGF, il serait aussi plus efficace « d'un point de vue économique » depermettre à d'autres acteurs que les notaires de rédiger les « actes soumis à publicité foncière » (vente de biens immobiliers, baux de plus de douze ans, etc.). « Aucun motif d'intérêt général » ne justifie la situation de monopole qui prévaut actuellement.

Enfin, il conviendrait de modifier la gestion des données du registre du commerce et des sociétés, dont s'occupent les greffiers de tribunaux de commerce et un groupement d'intérêt économique (GIE), Infogreffe. Le système est très rentable pour ces acteurs, comme l'avait relevé, en mai 2013, la Cour des comptes dans une lettre à la ministre de la justice, Christiane Taubira. Il « gagnerait à bénéficier davantage de rendements d'échelle croissants », considère l'IGF, qui préconise de passer à une « délégation de service public unique nationale mise en place selon le droit commun de la commande publique ».

• Instaurer des tarifs plus modérés

L'IGF trouve que certains tarifs, codifiés par la loi, sont trop éloignés des« coûts réels de production ». Une baisse de 20 % « laisserait encore une marge nette raisonnable aux professionnels », pronostiquent les auteurs du rapport. A leurs yeux, il reviendrait à l''Autorité de la concurrence detracer des orientations pour réajuster les prix.

L'une des idées fortes de l'IGF consiste à revoir les modalités de calcul des honoraires payés par des particuliers à un notaire lorsqu'ils achètent leurlogement. Aujourd'hui, ils sont proportionnels à la valeur du bien. Or, l'explosion des cours de l'immobilier depuis une dizaine d'année a permis aux notaires d'augmenter leur chiffre d'affaire sans que cela soit entièrement imputable à « la complexité du dossier ou (au) temps effectivement passé » sur la transaction. Une illustration : pour un appartement de 60 mètres carrés vendu à Paris, les émoluments empochés par les notaires ont augmenté de 159 % entre 2000 et 2012, selon l'IGF.

Le rapport invite aussi à mettre en place de nouvelles pratiques pour les tarifs – souvent exubérants - réclamés par les plombiers et les serruriers quand ils interviennent en urgence. Il serait judicieux, pour l'IGF, d'améliorer l'information du client « sur le coût » et de rendre obligatoire la publication « du prix d'un panier d'interventions ». Une plus grande transparence serait aussi la bienvenue sur « les tarifs de conseils et de poses de prothèses dentaires ».

• Faire tomber les barrières à l'entrée

Pour les professions soumises à autorisation d'installation, « il serait économiquement plus efficace de poser un principe de liberté », tout en donnant la possibilité aux pouvoirs publics de prévoir des exceptions, dûment motivées et contrôlées par le juge administratif. L'IGF est également favorable à la suppression du numerus clausus restreignant l'accès à plusieurs formations liées à la santé (pharmaciens d'officine, chirurgien-dentiste, masseur-kinésithérapeute, vétérinaire, infirmier).

Enfin, dans certains métiers du bâtiment, il faudrait, d'après les auteurs du rapport, alléger, voire abolir, « les contraintes de qualification restreignant l'accès à des tâches artisanales ». Pourrait par exemple être créé un statut « de professionnel de proximité » qui permettrait à des personnes sans bagage précis d'accomplir des « tâches élémentaires ».