not only Europe but also the rest of the world is still extraordinary in a crisis situation - regardless of all against-part statements by politicians and all (especially for the German economy) rosy economic forecasts of economists.
In the European Union, this crisis is a sophisticated face. While the German economy in particular over the last few months, quite well-developed, which meets for the other Member States to possibly very limited. Everything is still the Situation in those countries dramatically involved with the financing of its heavily indebted state budgets problems. Whether Greece, Ireland, Portugal, Spain or Italy - where improvement is there nowhere in sight. On the contrary, is becoming more the devastating effect the chosen harsh austerity measures on the affected national economies and in particular on labor markets. In these countries there are significant social tensions that are perceived elsewhere apparently not nearly to this level of intensity. The result is that the seriousness of European crisis on the one hand often underestimated, especially in Germany.
What's the other complicating factor, are in "The European Crisis (Part 1)" outlined factors, in particular the parallel behavior of financial market participants - including banks - U.S. rating agencies, press and media, from which a dark exaggerated doom scenario for the euro-zone and € the results.
It is therefore difficult to assess the scale of the problems correctly.
has since stated that began in the press and media in order to correct the negative image exaggerated with reports and analysis. This is good news. Above all, this correction has mediated in the "high" for Europe, of course, but also to do with the warning by Timothy Geithner from the looming insolvency of the U.S. that the relations, the crisis helped issue back to straight again. This is good for Europe.
What, however, still difficult to obtain because of the European crisis in the handle, including the fact that it is misunderstood. These are financial market professionals, and media and politicians alike contributed to the crisis because she from the beginning as "debt crisis" and the "crisis €" referred to.
While it is only half the truth, to speak at the European crisis of a debt crisis, then the Term "crisis €" much less. For is not the euro, as Jean-Claude Trichet again quite rightly says, the problem, but the budgetary and economic policies of the Member States.
It had always been clear that the European Monetary Union would be dependent on economic stability throughout the Euro-zone. Anything else is unthinkable, because one of the main economic policy instruments, namely the possibility of exchange rate adjustment by appreciation or depreciation, is pleased with the continued monetary union. Because the economic policy remain in national responsibility, it was also clear from the outset that it is the responsibility and would be due to the discipline of the Member States to ensure that first will work vigorously and consistently to a reduction of economic disparities within Europe. However, this is not done sufficiently. More than that shows the current crisis, have produced both the targeting experiments in this direction of Brussels (for example, under the Structural Funds) and the Member States of the crisis-ridden no lasting positive results. Seen in the financial and economic crisis of the litmus test for Europe's growth model and Europe has had this test - if it even wants to express dramatically - not passed.
Second had been the decision to achieve the monetary union realized that it would be the responsibility of the Governments of the Member States to contribute to economic stability at home care and that includes a responsible financial management. Also this is not done in a satisfactory manner and that is not only crass misbehavior, for which Greece is the infamous case in point. It has to do with the fact that director-ments not have the temptation to resist, not later than the beginning of the crisis, national interests more strongly to the forefront of economic policy to provide action, which - restricting the possibilities in the result of weaker Member States to ensure their economic stability in the crisis - given the existing own economic strength.
Not the euro is therefore the problem and so it is absurd to assume that the abolition of the euro would be the best solution. She is not unique.
The European crisis as a "debt crisis" to describe is the same, previously above, only half the story.
First be taken into account that we are still in a exceptional crisis situation are. This is true for us as for many other economic regions, especially the U.S. and - as a non-euro member - including the UK. The national debt crisis is essentially a receipt for the path chosen to stabilize financial markets and the global economy. It is now presented to us and virulent because of this "solution" other than intended no lasting improvement to be related, but has glossed over the underlying problems with a lot of money.
That was quite predictable .
But what was not predictable, is that governments have purchased with money Time would not use it to tackle the crisis at the causes and find sustainable solutions. Exactly why the crisis brings us back now. However, it is frivolous, the exceptionally crisis implicitly and tacitly to explain to normal and thus to make the debt problem of EU states to a central, independent nation-state by the crisis problem. perceived
this into account must second that the debt crisis of the EU States, is precisely due not only to unsound financial management and therefore impossible overcome only by strict austerity can be. Rather, animals Konsta, that has collapsed in the crisis countries, the current growth concept. This must be seen, what was the core of their recent growth concept. Whether Hungary, Greece, Ireland and other smaller states of the EU: for all had the previous European growth model massively positive impact on their own economic development. It can also be expressed differently: Without the European Union there had been in the past, no such positive economic development. In other words, the current economic crisis and growth of these States, a sign that the former European growth model does not longer works.
know this, we must, as the previous European growth was-created model:
European integration was always driven by the idea of eco-nomic convenient. This is the case for the European single market project, the European research and technology policy, for European industrial policy. Always there were also included European corporations who benefit especially, but should help generate the necessary pressure for such integration steps in the planning. Today it is called simply "lobbying". And it is also true for the monetary union and for the enlargement of the European Union. Always the resulting economic benefits were crucial to ensuring that these steps were taken.
The central, guiding thought in building the European Communities and later the European Union was to create an economic point since the late 60s, an economic area which offered the right conditions for companies in international competition against the U.S. catch up companies (see especially 100 COM (70) final, "The industrial policy" from 03/18/1970 - the so-called Colonna memorandum; see also (1) and (2) ). But it was considered necessary, in Europe the rise of large companies - so-called European Champions - to promote, which could compete with the dominant for the U.S. large companies. Back then, because it went through unanimously agrees to mainly increase efficiency and achieve economies of scale or economies of scale, have been promoted including acquisitions and mergers in the banking sector. For large, international companies need to operating successfully in global markets according to major banks on their side, they advise and could support financially. It also needed of how the U.S., a large, single European market, but also new for this market developed European products and services that it exploit the large companies permitted, the dimension of the Single Market. The degree of harmonization of rules, norms and standards, and the abolition of national currencies developed in this context, a huge potential for cost-cutting economy.
Enlargement of the European Union was the view of the then EU members quite in this sense especially directed to the markets of the accession countries for the large European companies to open up. Of course, other factors also played a role, in particular about the use of the opportunity, the Eastern bloc countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union guaranteed the future beyond the control of the new Russia, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) can offer.
, European growth model existed long before the eastern enlargement and has been extended to the peripheral states of the Community - to them, including Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece - used and then later extended to the new accession countries. Shortened form of this growth model is to provide the economic Catching up on the edge of the weaker states of the EU to strengthen by increasing the local economic activity, which should come at the same time the economy, particularly the large EU countries in central benefit.
should essentially benefit these countries first the fact that the large European companies extended their activities to these states and thus open up not only the local markets, but also from there, given cost advantages (especially and low wage costs could benefit). In this context shows the example of Hungary, once a model country for the success of this model, very clear that this arrangement no longer works since the crisis in these countries. Hungary will be raised since the fall of 2010 a special tax for the purpose of fiscal consolidation of large companies (3) to defend themselves but now heavily against it, contribute to the costs of crisis management immediately. (4)
Secondly, the economic development of the weaker EU-members through various Föderinstrumente, particularly the structural funds, including massive financial support. That is, of redistribution - the richer countries to pay higher contributions to the EU budget, it flows but less of it back at them. Ultimately benefit from the dedicated especially in fragile States, major European companies. Now, the crisis shows that this support is obviously not sustainable contribution to reducing economic disparities within the EU.
It is fatal in this context that EU, ECB and IMF does not seem to have recognized that the European model of growth not seen since the outbreak of the crisis with. The commitment and the profits of the large European companies in fragile states is crucial for their economic stability. Therefore, these countries with the world economic crisis, which primarily The internationally operating companies had made and which is not just overcome already, as I said above, get into such great economic difficulties.
fact that EU, ECB and IMF have now made a unilateral and drastic austerity measures as a condition for aid to the states in crisis hits, it doubly hard: They have no financial freedom more, to find himself a new national growth strategy for their country and implement - because without money and at the same time as a result of massive cost-cutting policy on economy is not collapsing. Furthermore, there is no hope for them currently able to view, the EU will help them in that they are on the search for a new, sustainable european grayling growth model makes the economic crisis of the States includes.
The austerity dictated from above is definitely not a concept of growth and no way to make the former European growth model to work again, but the opposite. pursue this path will increase the internal stresses in the crisis countries and intra-European tensions between the crisis countries and the rest of the Union. The example of Hungary and the special tax for corporations, which must be understood as a direct response to the collapse of the traditional European model could therefore set a precedent.
With this collapse created a vacuum that urgently with pan-European aspirations for a new European wax growth model must be closed. It is not acceptable and it is unacceptable that an ongoing basis as a result of this vacuum and the continuing crisis in either the citizens of the crisis states are asked to pay (austerity) - such as Hungary, Greece and Ireland - or the citizens of the "rich "Member States (Rescue Aid / Transfer Union). It is acceptable, especially not because both ultimately serves only the old, to large European companies anabolic growth model artificially to keep alive by corporations and large banks - not the states! - Again and again saves (eg Greece, Ireland). And by the same time its preferential treatment to which they have become accustomed obvious (eg, lower company tax rate in Ireland) upright, even during the crisis they respectively shall not participate in the costs of crisis management - as they, for example, explicitly required in Hungary (5), but is insufficiently substantiated (6).
, and is therefore described only half the truth, the European crisis as a "debt crisis". The euro is not really the central problem of the European Union or the euro-zone. The central problem is the stability of the economy in the Member States, which is partly the responsibility of governments, on the other hand, in case of crisis states also on the sustainability of the European Economic and growth model dependent.
For sustainable liberation of Europe from the "stranglehold" of the financial markets on a sustainable European growth story is still needed. A new growth story is essential for the EU as a whole. Therefore, the search for a new, sustainable growth model for the Heads of State and Government have top priority.
to dependence groups of economies:
- export surpluses: The German trade surplus is one of the auto industry (by 24/01/11).
0 comments:
Post a Comment