Today the Catalan newspaper "The Vanguard" in its section of economy presents an interesting titled article: (Those in favor of a "new deal” to save the euro-area they win supports) basing me on the one wants to backslide in my opinions in this respect making a semantic and thematic variations on the opinion of the expert authors of the article and their recommendations.
As the danger of a new recession grows increasing the serious crisis of debt European, more economists they are already adding the call of former first minister and leaders social democrats in favor of a plan to emit Eurobonds and to use the European Bank of Investments like vehicle of massive public and private investments, you help to small and medium companies dedicated to promote the growth and to correct the differences of productivity in the area euro.
It is necessary to emit Eurobonds to avoid more austerity and to use public banks to carry out investments in sectors that can create employment of high productivity, as green" technology, Stephany declared Griffith Jones that seconds the call to a new deal for the area euro elaborated by the economists Stuart Holland and Yanis Varoufakis and signed by a dozen of former government presidents, among them Giuliano Amato, Michel Rocard and Mario Soares. This call appeared three weeks ago in newspapers as Financial Times and La Vanguardia.
Another keynesian economist, Heiner Flassbeck, economist boss of the Unctad, urged the European leaders to “to separate the debt of the area euro of the pressures of the markets, and this is made by means of the emission of Eurobonds". Tom McDonnell, economist boss of the Institute Tasc in Dublin, supports the proposal of new deal although he notices in this respect: "The creation of Eurobonds won't be enough; it will be necessary that the BCE is a moneylender of last resource to create margin for fiscal politicians against recurrent without risk of creating fear for the solvency."
The general impression is that the markets of European debt will no longer respond to more structural reformations, but rather it is necessary growth to recover the trust in the solvency of the area euro. But there are more and more slowness indications. Therefore, "Europe should take place, in an urgent way, a summit of growth to make a pact measures dedicated to elevate the demand added in the area euro", Griffith Jones said.
This Keynesian language - nonexistent in the official answers to the crisis - it begins to win land. As much Stiglitz as Griffith Jones believes that the summit of Brussels of two weeks ago it has created some of the necessary structures to solve the crisis. It is "an important step; now it is necessary to activate it urgently", Griffith points out Jones. And it proposes these measures:
1) The emission of Eurobonds to substitute 60% of the debt of the countries of the area euro. This would get off a plumazo the paid types of interest on this debt.
2) The immediate activation of purchases of funds of the periphery for the European Financial Fund of Stability. The European central Bank should also carry out these purchases.
3) To confront the problems of competitiveness of the outlying economies you should increase the scale of the European Bank of Investments and the European Fund of Investments drastically. "The banks of development publics are key of the success of Brazil with BNDS and Germany with KFW", he says.
4) You control on the derived credit default swaps and measures to correct the bias recurrent pro of the agencies of debt qualification that they increase the expansion cycle and later recession.
All this is very well they are economic recipes that seen on the whole they could give result but that unfortunately they are missed and they are not applicable to the situation political and social today European, one won't be able to use economic measures in the Europe of the euro for that it fails the basic concept boisterously there is not form that the European Union is an union and starting from here everything it is of more.
Until the thin luggage racks have come, more or less he has left avoiding the reality, when the society is happy all politics is good, and the politicians also, the thing changes when the expectations are rotated the problems they begin and it breaks the happiness, then also it breaks the unit that existed never of certain, the economy, he told it yesterday, it is not the cause, it is the consequence of the disunion. When the nonexistent European planning with regard to the productive development of the area euro (because each one looked for their country and their industry), he wanted to realize it was already late. Europe had unbalanced its commercial scale becoming client instead of supplier of the rest of countries and emergent powers of the planet.
As consequence, I don't eat cause, the European countries began to have awful deficits that covered with emissions of sovereign debt without paragon until then, this situation comes happening for 10 years, the first and mistaken solutions, were to enlarge the group thinking maybe that this would reactivate the production and it would contribute a small third interior world, so that the rich ones European they used it to its favor, cheap manpower, consumption necessities, etc. Tremendous error what this took place was still a deeper imbalance, since the countries of the European union that today I denominate PIGSI for the incorporation of Italy, they were those that were making this paper of poor so that they had rich as Germany, France, and the European Nordic and Center countries.
What has passed in Europe is this way that now there are many poorer than rich, too many would say me, and this doesn't like the world investors neither the rich ones of Europe, very logical it is that it is that natural and simple and there is not "new deal" that is worth, you cannot base the arrangement of this situation in new you formulate economic global because there are not globalization neither money, inside the "area euro", in no way Germany accepted to distribute its wealth and its industrial potential with the peripherals, neither Holland neither Denmark, neither so at least France put to put the things like they are.
Nobody neither political neither civil in their healthy human trial, and therefore individualist, he will accept to work for other, and above to pay the party, this it is the concept, this it is the current reality and for many Keynesian analysts or not that they say it, (they are located outside of this reality) and they believe in good faith that it is understandable, and non gentlemen are not it, neither for the politician that has made of their vocation their way of life, neither it is it for the citizen that works and you go that they want to fry to taxes because there are others that need it, it didn't never accept it.
The occasion like he said yesterday, you vanishes, when everything worked it was the moment of having united the Europe of the euro indeed, but he got lost the step then and there is not form of recovering it today with economic, alone measures a form it exists the sacrifice of the politicians, they are those that should plan the "new deal" of Europe, giving up their own nationalism and appearing a single and wide European nationalism, and if they don't come it viable the best thing is to undo everything and that each one tolerated their debt like he can, with their country and their economy and their foreign currency.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario