When the financial crisis in 2007 in the United States began - then played down as "U.S. mortgage crises" - prevailed outside the U.S. first for months before the assessment that it was an American problem. When the crisis soon swept across the Atlantic and Germany brought the SME Bank, IKB and Sachsen LB into difficulties, although there was concern. But a beginning serious crisis on the European continent at first thought a little. Even in summer of 2008, just weeks before the bankruptcy of investment bank Lehman Brothers were, for example, the economic forecasts of economists for the second half of 2008 by the Bank positively. Following the Lehman bankruptcy has all changed very quickly and only from that sat in the public reporting and debate on the crisis called the terminology "financial crisis".
But even that was a misjudgment. This is expressed first is that the causes of the crash following the real economy were incorrectly seen alone or at least very much in the financial market crisis. And because the crisis was as a financial market crisis understand that governments have no economic policy for itself for action. Instead, they dumped second the banks with the problems on the proverbial feet. When it became clear that the central banks to financial markets could stabilize as quickly and increasingly shifted the risk of a credit crunch in the foreground, the government acted after all. Here, the world economic crisis was perceived as cyclical, that is as short-term, temporary - the third sign of the false sense of crisis. The interpretation of the situation at this time was as simple as wrong: There was the conviction that the state should support the real economy in the spirit of Keynes only temporarily with economic stimulus measures - until the central banks would be able to stabilize the financial markets again. Where has this shows itself in the U.S. and also in Japan.
Only in recent weeks, as part of the EU's debt crisis, has - in view of the many places re-emergence of problems that point to an imminent return, or, depending on interpretation, a resurgence of the financial market crisis - a debate on economic policy Action for the European Union started.
After almost four years, the crisis debate in Europe now that is actually still arrived in a crisis reality - at least a little.
again because the error is made to derive this action solely on the financial difficulties, which are currently most heavily indebted EU member states found. As a consequence, dominated by the controversial debate on the one hand, proposals have the tools to stabilize these countries and the euro - increase in rescue funds, Euro bonds, European Monetary Fund. On the other hand, economic policy action at European level seen only insofar as it serves to prevent future bad financial management and thereby caused excessive indebtedness in the EU Member States.
is currently out of this discussion is still more likely on a fundamental level: Do we need a central European economic government or merely a better coordination of national economic policies? That is the question that is important and this shows how superficial the Auseiandersetzung at this stage is actually still. With an intensification of the Stability Pact is about the question of uniform Criteria on which the budgets of governments are to be checked and automatically cross-sanctions. Sun will include about the competitiveness of Member States to come to the forefront of attention. Such criteria can not easily find and often is not as clear as they can be measured in any meaningful and reliable. For example, just as the definition and measurement of welfare by the gross domestic product (GDP), the definition and measurement of competitiveness in the economic sciences-not without controversy - one in the current political debate, at least considerably underestimated problem.
What does the debate is that it remains a perception problem underlying the crisis, which excludes a substantial part of krisenursächlichen problems: the crisis is simplistic-fachend conceived as a debt crisis. The financing problems and the implications for financial markets and the euro to be seen. The problems of the European economy, which, as in "The European Crisis - Part 2" argues signal that the current European model of growth with no more be hidden as much as possible. While the imbalances within the EU seen as problematic and they are - here and at the global level - in the light Woren of considerations, governments on the current account balance target oblige, already briefly discussed. There are concrete solutions, it is not.
Meanwhile, the EU is only seen that this problem is not solely or exclusively on the part of countries with current account surpluses can be solved. Rather, to work mainly in the countries with persistent current account deficits from increasing their competitiveness. However, as already pointed out earlier, while the concept of competitiveness itself is at Planning: What does the competitiveness of states are, how they will measure be? After all, now sprout on the knowledge that one can "success model" of export nations is not simply an act misunderstood harmonization sierungsstrebens put on by all EU Member States.
has Nonetheless, the discussion list in the direction correctly accounted for financial management "on the basis of a few" good "macro-economic indicators - only this is in the crisis just become clear that these" proven "say reliable figures does not exist: What's Example as "welfare"? All attempts by economists to define it and measure, have failed. Thus, it is also questionable as to what extent the "economic growth", measured by the growth of gross domestic product, to give appropriate guidance at all can - not least when looking at everywhere in the industrialized countries are far apart anderklaffende think wealth and income gap. The wax tumsideologie - more and more of the same - that follows the economic policy, given the experience of the crisis are increasingly being questioned.
All this and more is behind the question of economic policy action for the European Union. The fact that the financial market crisis, the leading economic Schools - neoclassical, Keynesian and neo-liberalism - has itself plunged into a crisis because they obvious weaknesses and the limited financing power orientation mercilessly exposing their theories complicates the Orien-tation on this issue heavily.
On the economics side a kind of vacuum has been created, the policy hurt the long term not because they once ignored the economic action and watched the crisis with all its economic theoretical questions as a problem of central banks. Separately, it will hurt but also because not because they are in the past few years more and more on economic theoretical foundations removed and instead shifted to economic pragmatism. Thus, once the stronger orientation meaning of empirical data, for others a greater consideration of the interests of stakeholders, that is: The door for lobbyists was wide open. The dependence of the Policy of the "Expertise" and the Council of lobbyists has increased enormously: The other side of the coin.
The situation has changed fundamentally. First today is the influence of lobbyists in the population and seen even in the economy extremely critical. Second tends the orientation of value of empirical data that is of course always past safety data in turbulent economy Times to zero. If in the economy and financial markets topsy-turvy and nothing is as it once was, then all thing of the past collected and data compressed experience to master the reality only of very limited value and some completely worthless. In other words, in turbulent economic times is the economic theory, the only support for the economy and financial markets-related policy.
This makes clear how precarious the situation really is, because the financial market crisis of all economic theory, the last stop giving the orientation of policy, has shaken to its foundations.
What aggravates the situation is that current economic policy action is seen at a European level, though. But as before, the need for economic stimulation to the Lehman bankruptcy, he is currently justified by the financial markets ago. The proposals for an EU economic government give this reason for example, rather the impression that the politicians had a type of "European-saving police" or "EU economic government savings" in mind.
this and can not be the solution. It would make the EU the burden to their limits and intra-European as well as the intra-governmental tensions. On the other hand, a clear economic policy action at EU level, in isolation from the secondary question of whether it should be centrally organized - a kind of European economic government - or a framework for national governments.
Taking into account the above-mentioned problems an economic and political solution and therefore a new, sustainable economic model for the EU can not be found, as long as they can not reach agreement on a economic policy model duer the EU is . It is one of major failures of the EU that this issue was never discussed at all. This is the reason why every EU Member State wurschtelt economic policy in front of him and we now, under pressure from the debt crisis of thinking in that direction to start.
If you want to take this question of the economic model in attack, then one must also be clear what that means: It is - as always in times of crisis - not without recourse to economic theory. Because these statements is in principle for the functional relationships of the market economy (or capitalism) and the conditions for economic Prosperity ready. That is the point: What can and must be done so that the European Union as a whole prospers again? The problem: There is not the one correct theory, but also imperfect and different theories with different strengths and weaknesses.
however terrible abstract as it sounds, it is not. Because everyone knows what drives the market economy, which it can prosper, namely: the competition . Competition is the engine of Marktwirtchaft and at the same time ordering and a dynamic regulatory caring power of market forces - at least in the ideal. In reality it is not - no more, it must be said, because in the post-war Germany Ludwig Erhard's example, he was very clear. What we see today, however, is often referred to as "predatory capitalism" or the same as a "crisis of capitalism", which is connected to the receivables for a strong state. (1)
It is wrong and can only be explained by ignorance of the relationship, if capitalism, market economy and competition as the core of the problem are considered, which could only be solved by a strong state. The problem lies elsewhere: economic policy can successful only if they are run by a true idea of what conditions must be met müsssen so that the economy prospers, it just does not lead to excesses.
is crucial for this, as explained above, the competitive ideal.
The question of the conditions under which competition unfolds all its positive effects on the organization of markets and for economic prosperity is, in Economics in of different ways answered - which currently covers No one theme-mated. We can therefore assume that the competition-statement on which is oriented economic policies of the industrialized countries - they do it, also addressed if no one - obviously the responsibility is that we are witnessing today a predatory capitalism and such a have deep crisis with sustained large, systemic instability.
In "The European Crisis - Part 4" is to set out to choose between principle which different visions of competition, the European Union in order to guide economic policy, which does show the underlying theories and orientations for action which they give.
- first and second Great Depression: A different situation, other measures, but the same error - History Repeating? (v. 21.03.10);
- Beating The Crisis: The Dilemma of economists and central bankers (by 6:07:09);
- financial crisis and economic system: resistance and success of lobbyists show that a free market economy, there is neither the goal nor is (v. 02.01.10).
0 comments:
Post a Comment