Samuel Naves C.

@CortesNaves

FR Civil Service | Economics & Management agrégé | PhD Cand. EU Law | Ex EEAS EU | ENS alumni #DigitalPolicy #EUExternalAction RT#endorsement

Here

Joined October 2020

655 Following

309 Followers

1.1K Posts

CortesNaves retweeted

Maria Tadeo

@mariatad

about 12 hours ago

Christine Lagarde on China ahead of October deadline for EU trade reset: «need an adult in the rooms conversation, sector by sector, on practices, grants and subsidies, pricing and financing.»

Samuel Naves C. @CortesNaves

2 days ago

@RobFrancisEU THX! In that case, I'm not entirely sure I understand the rationale for the "late" provisional application of the ITA (Conclusion Decision), given that all the internal procedural steps will already have been completed for the ITA entering into force.Étrange…

CortesNaves retweeted

Rob Francis @RobFrancisEU

2 days ago

The modernised EU-Mexico trade agreement could enter into force provisionally as soon as November. Others think January is more likely. Either way, this thing is happening, pending an approval vote in the Mexican senate in September. More by me below https://t.co/4eSRpMMLDP

414

CortesNaves retweeted

Olivier Blanchard

@ojblanchard1

2 days ago

Several French presidential candidates, declared or potential, argue for the introduction of retirement system based on capitalisation. One must be clear about what it can and cannot achieve. It is not a magic remedy. It would have been good in 1945 to put in place at least a partially funded system. The system was very generous towards the older workers and the retirees. While it made sense given how many of them had suffered in the war, it was probably too generous. It should have been a mix of pay as you go and capitalisation. It would have made the system more resilient, for example with respect to demographic changes. But this is water under the bridge, and irrelevant to what the options are today. Introducing a parallel capitalisation system does not solve in any way the deficit problem of the pay as you go system, unless it is associated with a decrease in what was promised to workers and retirees, say by an increase in the retirement age, or a cut in benefits. But, if promises are on the chopping block, case, the pay as you go system can be balanced without introducing a capitalisation system. The capitalisation does not help; the cuts do. There is however an argument for going even beyond balance of the pay as you go system and use the surplus to create a fund which grows over time and slowly transforms the pay as you go system into a fully funded system. But this implies even larger cuts in benefits, or an even higher retirement age. This should be explicit and it is not. As its proponents argue, a capitalisation system is likely to generate additional saving: Some people who had not saved before will now do so. But the European Unions has a saving rate that largely exceeds its investment (France is roughly balanced). The issue in Europe is not low saving; it is lower investment. It would indeed be useful to redirect the saving of households towards riskier, but also more productive, investment, in particular in frontier sectors, and, through this, increase investment. But this is mostly a separate issue. It points to reforms of the financial system rather than the introduction of a retirement system by capitalisation.

340

187

67K

Who to follow

Todo por Killa 🏝️

@todoporkilla

Killero, hincha del Junior y Antiuribista, pa' que más?🥑

Samuel Naves C. @CortesNaves

2 days ago

iTA for interim trade agreement (the EU’s only, non mixed agreeement) ; MGA for modernised global agreement (the mixed political and cooperation agreeement that also requires approval by EU national parliaments).

Samuel Naves C. @CortesNaves

2 days ago

EU-Mexico iTA and MGA, done! 🇪🇺🇲🇽Approved by European Parliament (Art. 218§6 TFEU). We are lacking the publication at the Official Journal of both agreements though... https://t.co/Pf3VWKCqn2

105

CortesNaves retweeted

Banque de France

@banquedefrance

3 days ago

📊 Taux d’épargne : quand l’harmonisation comptable réduit les écarts entre les pays Les écarts de taux d’épargne entre les grandes économies sont bien connus : les États-Unis épargnent structurellement moins que la France, qui elle-même épargne moins que l’Allemagne. Mais avant toute comparaison internationale, une question essentielle se pose : de quel taux d’épargne parle-t-on ? Les méthodes de calcul diffèrent selon les conventions statistiques retenues. Ainsi, en 2025, le taux d’épargne des ménages américains est estimé à 4,6 % selon les statistiques nationales, mais à 10,7 % lorsqu’il est calculé selon la méthodologie harmonisée de l’OECD-OCDE et d’Eurostat. Si cette harmonisation permet de rapprocher les mesures entre pays, elle ne fait pas disparaître les différences. Celles-ci reflètent en partie des caractéristiques institutionnelles profondes : 🔹 l’organisation des systèmes de retraite (capitalisation ou répartition) ; 🔹 le partage entre consommation privée et dépenses publiques, notamment en matière de santé et d’éducation ; 🔹 la structure de la fiscalité, en particulier sur la consommation. Mieux comprendre ces déterminants structurels est indispensable pour éclairer les débats économiques internationaux, notamment ceux portant sur les équilibres entre épargne, investissement et financement de l’économie. Pour en savoir plus, consultez le dernier Bulletin de la Banque de France 👉 https://t.co/zHBxgmewG7