September 12, 2016 Leave a comment
The European Union’s Deficit/Debt Rule considered fundamental for members economies harmonic development through raising Productivity and cutting the dead branches of bureaucracy and governments spending:
The Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) is an agreement, among the 28 Member states of the European Union, to facilitate and maintain the stability of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Based primarily on Articles 121 and 126 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it consists of fiscal monitoring of members by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, and the issuing of a yearly recommendation for policy actions to ensure a full compliance with the SGP also in the medium-term. If a Member State breaches the SGP’s outlined maximum limit for government deficit and debt, the surveillance and request for corrective action will intensify through the declaration of an Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP); and if these corrective actions continue to remain absent after multiple warnings, the Member State can ultimately be issued economic sanctions. The pact was outlined by a resolution and two council regulations in July 1997.The first regulation “on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies”, known as the “preventive arm”, entered into force 1 July 1998.
“In the ‘corrective arm’ of the SGP, the Excessive Deficit Procedure (EDP) ensures the correction of excessive budget deficits or excessive public debt levels. It is a step-by-step approach for reining in excessive deficits and reducing excessive debts.
The EU Treaty defines an excessive budget deficit as one greater than 3 % of GDP. Public debt is considered excessive under the Treaty if it exceeds 60 % of GDP without diminishing at an adequate rate (defined as a decrease of the excess debt by 5 % per year on average over three years).”
The two directions this Rule should ‘help’ individual members and the union overall is thus by obeying the Rule the countries are constrained from balking up unsustainable debt (in case over 60% of its GDP) and to the Union to overall setting common ground for such unification.
The Rule has become the economies measurement for righteousness in terms of balanced economic growth and therefore many if not all other EU economic policies have been designed and implemented in compliance with the Rule. And, for example, when Banks were receiving funds for re-balancing on very low interest rate most of the governments were not given access to such. The principle is to steer business not government spending, to raise productivity not social programs, particularly by less developed economies of the Union that have lower productivity and weak organization. Thus, business must be boosted in places of underdevelopment – not through governments spending but through market activities. The Transnationals are considered front-runners to spread economic activities and prompt productivity. The Trickle-down Libertarian Economics is the philosophy of the EU economics: the preferential status Transnationals and Large Investors in the EU is supported by High VAT pushed by the EU particularly to the Periphery along with Low Profit Taxation. thus the idea also goes that these Transnationals mostly coming from the most developed EU economies will spread out economic progress. The most advanced economies apply constant pressure on the EU government to keep on such direction. (TO BE CONTINUED)
2007-9 Recession and Post Recession Observations on the EU Deficit/Debt Rule’s Effect
On Macro level the Central Banks use Monetary and Fiscal Policies to adjust redundancies and shortages: over and under capitalization, and thus to prevent building up of balloons that can burst to recessions, or at least it goes in theory. The most recent usage of Quantitative Easing to pumping money into the system, even used since 2001 by Bank of Japan was a relatively new market tool until 2008-9 when the US Federal Reserve started using it on a large scale coming up to 89 Million USD per Month.
Over all, either by issuing long term bonds or by quantitative easing the Central Banks of the US, Japan, EU or UK;s or the China have pumped money through Tier One prime Banks, Financial Institutions, or even Large Corporations into government spending, finance and business activities to sustain the decline caused by the 2007-9 Recession and consequently boost economic growth.
The Central Banks analysis when changing economic policies have used Monetary and Fiscal Policies predominantly influenced by an Economics of Neoliberalism relying on the Large Transnational Financial Institutions and Corporations to help boosting productivity and business that consequently should have brought reduction of the unemployment, underemployment, and thus prompt consumption not by empowering further the governments involvement into business but mostly on the private sector in case on the large finance and corporate organizations.
The theory that have built the most prosperous economies of the US, UK, Germany, and Japan was considered solid enough to raise any doubts in its ability to prompt enough such business and than consumption: it (the theory) is a supply driven growth of ups-and-downs runs pf a trickle-down Capitalism. Life should have continued as usual.
“Eurostat released estimates of first quarter GDP for the Eurozone a little over a week ago (here), showing modest growth of 0.5% for the more inclusive measure of European countries. This is the 12th quarter in a row that the Eurozone has exhibited positive growth after suffering nearly two years of negative growth 2011-2013. The truth is, however, that the Eurozone has only barely recovered to its pre-recession levels. Furthermore, this growth has been driven by core economies, with countries on the periphery still years away from a full recovery.”
The economic growth of the post-recession EU could be considered anemic in it’s best. High underemployment, in some places high unemployment, rising inequality, declining middle class, rising poverty and debt: both personal and national have appropriated the period after 2007-9 up to now (2016). And this is not even the reality, because there are other factors to a bleaker situation, indeed!
A combination of factors that can paint the real picture of an economy/market:
– the Real-time Air Quality Index
– Pollution Index
– the Human Development Index
– Human Poverty Index
– the real employment and underemployment figures
– the Inflation/Deflation
– the inequality ( Gini Coefficient)
– the GDP Growth Rate
must be considered such the real effect certain GDP growth has on the market: whereas the GDP growth is just one of these, and if for example the Gini Coefficient is high and the GDP growth must deduct it (the Gini Coefficient) or at best adjust the GDP growth effect on that market the GDP growth’s effect must be substantially reduced!
The EU Periphery runs high and higher than the most developed EU markets with the exception of the UK Gini Coefficient; Periphery that also is with a low GDP growth, high employment and underemployment, etc that could be considered results of the EU general economic policies effect: the 3% Deficit/Debt Rule is a fundamental EU policy along with the imposed high VAT, low business taxes and social expenses, raising the retirement age, removing labor protection regulations, etc.
The conclusions drawn from the data is that Budgetary Economic as used by the EU insisted by Germany that is an exporting economy have holding effect to any possible growth. The Market Agents that could boost growth under the ongoing Globalization and rising Productivity differ from the Agents and Tools insisted by the EU: the weakening labor laws, expanding pension age, protection, lowered business taxation, and over the board privatization on discount prices, the high VAT are counter-productive under these new conditions of fierce exogenous market forces: by lowering the equities values and living standards thus farther diminishing the labor markets , consumption, and demand! The conception that by imposing tightening rules over an economy will boost foreign investment and then productivity is not performing under these new conditions, because when the marketplace loses consumption it moves foreign direct investment to expanding consumption markets like China, India, or Vietnam. The ideas of Transnationals being attracted just buy lower taxes and they can boost any market to adequate employment are as archaic when the need for labor has been declining disproportionately to the value of high equity markets with rising consumption.
The Budgetary economics of the Rule keeps tight leach on the indebted less-developed economies; however, as seen it also establishes conditions for high inequality and poverty, unemployment and underemployment. The two approaches to the 3% Rule by those that obey it like Bulgaria keeping lower deficit and those braking it constantly like Italy results seem just keeping the status quo of lower growth of underdeveloped Bulgaria and drifting toward similar but yet with higher standard of living Italy, or crashing down Greece. There could be well concluded that both approaches are not working showing fundamental structural issues in these non functioning markets: the limit of monetary policies is well seen elsewhere: from the US to Japan, where the Prime Rates are underground with fairly limited results. But, the more stubborn EU 3% Rule goes further by even weaker economic results of a prolonged in and out recessen into the 1% growth.
The EU Poverty well matches the Inequality; however, it differs in its Debt data sets: the Debt reduction means no Development, Poverty reduction, and Prosperity in conflict with the Economic theory. .
A Market/Economy combines equity, government expenditures, and consumption from its demand side and business activities and global exposure from its supply such (TO BE CONTINUED)
The balance of a markets must be don by using the market forces self-adjusting on Micro-level – the interference by governments and investors must be done on a Macro-level such adjusting is much more complex and needs interference because of the exogenous and endogenous forces over the real economy, forces being accelerated by the increasing flexibility though moving and outsourcing by the large transnational (TNC) corporations, the technologies that reduced labor expenses by mechanizing farming, production, and services. China that sharply developed its industrial production structures and trading abilities, the Internet that allowed access to information for the many, and not the least the access to capital and foreign direct investment for the large corporations.
The globalization seemingly change the trend from time of the mostly developed economies holding industrial production and technologies to now when large Transnationals do move and outsource wherever they considered it profitable: to places of limited environmental, labor, or consumer protection. In context, China differs from the formal statement and actually the Chinese companies are following the same trend, but many smaller countries are ready to compromise any regulations and laws to attract big business. The TNC employ in the very single digits globally however more than 80% FDI goes to them. The tax avoidance by the TNC is another side effect that literally have them established as above governance by countries entities being able to move capital and infrastructure from country to country in their convenience. Another, major factor that boosted Transnational’s productivity has been the consulting company such as Boston Consulting Group that evaluated entities on a large scale, compared them to their competitors, and then help them lift up productivity by improving management, technologies, and sales practices. The critical powers of these consulting companies may ell be considered in the same level of the technologies, because without proper information for their competitors the difference in proficiency would be wider, than productivity lower in general.
The access to capital through Public Financing or Foreign Direct Investment, or/and Governments subsidies and initiatives have been fundamental for the Transnationals global reach. The global financial structures have covered the entire global marketplace by taking advantage of any opportunities: acquiring assets, building infrastructure, developing markets. What really happened has been a global expansion of the vivid and flexible Capitalism from the more developed markets to elsewhere. The capabilities of the Transnational in combination with the large Chinese Corporations have brought a tipping off that turned around the pro supply market to a pro demand driven such. Occurrence never experienced in history that also brought some graving disadvantages to most world markets: such as inequality, debt, declining middle class, and more poverty. The conceptional inability of the trickle-down economics to deal with these new forces are to be blamed for the poor or very poor results. Some market like Chinese adapted better by manipulating economics using a ‘as it comes; as it goes’ approach of sharply imposed subsidies, tax breaks, or imposing restrictions and farther scrutinizes holding about the 6.8% growth. Another markets like the US and the UK poured huge amount of cash into the system and even though not using the Chinese flexibility succeeded moderate rebound holding 2-3% growth; third markets like the EU ones stuck to the trickle-down budgetary economics and kept in and out from recession and deepened into underdevelopment.
The entire bleak global growth, however, brought rising nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and religious radicalism that consequences in many conflicts, terrorism, and in general instability.
The thing, however, that has been the most harmful affected by these development was the Earth Environment’s Pollution that have brought Global Warming with extreme weather, floods, drought, etc that most definitely must be sustained by alleviation of Poverty through global development but not by uncontrollable industrialization. The usage of old vehicles, the fossil fuels heating, the deforestation, the uncontrolled garbage disposal are byproducts of the poverty, underdevelopment, and lack of opportunities.
The Budget Economics is a mindset continuation of controlling borrowers by the lenders; in a way the very old tradition and thinking. Up until the pointed new development in the world the supply driven countries were necessary to obey rules to retain stability. The control by the lenders was the stone to an economy’s success. But, as it was mentioned above, the things have changed to a pro-demand pro-market balance market economics of paramount environmental protection. This new world calls for discontinuation of the budget driven economics by adapting flexibilities to sustain long term Markets Development. Whereas the Rule of Law in Business is a founding Market Agent to succeeding Market Development the budgetary
approach is not primary but a secondary. The everyone’s access to Employment under the conditions of moderate to low Inflation/Deflation are the primary. The Investment by individuals, institutions, or governments must be on a risk-and-reward consistency the way public investment has been. However, subsidies and fiscal initiatives to reach such full employment are must, the Earth environmental protection must overwrite any other priorities, too.
The question: how social and global order could be retained anther such new market condition maybe unanswered by the imposition of the Market Agents as compulsory for participation in the global marketplace; thus, the Rule of Laws in business will replace multiple and many times avoiding countries’ business laws. High protected Environmental, Consumer, Costumer, Labor, Insurance, Bonding, Intellectual, and other laws are Market Agents, too.
The Market Tools, however, used by different markets are compulsory vary from market to market: example is if a market is more socialized than it should be the social market tools should be less applied than the private business ones: the targets, however, are exactly the same: to steer business activities and employment by a self-adjusting on micro-level marketplace.
The Globalization and rising Productivity are pivotal for achieving such targets that conceptually differs Market Economics from the Capitalism or Social-capitalism’s Economics! When on the Micro-level the market forces are free roaming on a Macro-level these forces are adjusted by using parameters – not allowing over or under capitalization excessiveness. The markets expansion is considered a force prompting and maintaining high business activities by developed and developing countries alike. The division of labor where in the developing markets high education, organization, and technologies will benefit straightforward from the developing markets expansion into environmentally friendly farming, tourism, construction, etc the usage of subsidies and targeted market leaps will lower interest rate on all lending under the higher market security while Market Agents are implemented that in longer terms will move from subsidies to micro-level market financing. It cannot be ignored the powers markets invoke when given the opportunities, therefor acting on time to prevent quick acceleration up or down wards is going to be paramount in succeeding such longer-term Market Development; however, its believed that if a market evolves in sectors’ relative harmonic ways the upheaval even when could not be prevented will be far from the overwhelming such under the exp 2007-9 Recession when the Real Estate alone with Construction and Financing were the only market sectors in development – whereas the rest were either just hanging around or on a down-slope.
The Market Tools (explained in detail at my other articles) are parameters used flexibly to prevent or overcome access; therefore, it is considered by me that the ‘uncertainty rule’ applies to modern day markets whereas ‘parameters’ are used more-like in Quantum Mechanics’ approaches than in ‘game theory’ such. I do not believe the ‘Game Theory could not appropriately apply because of the variety of factors that built variety of pressures on the real markets. The game theory implies to similar possibilities why the Quantum Economics’ Theory implies to ‘uncertainty’s situation that the principles are used more-like on ‘as it comes; as it goes; principles of an theory of dispersing of energies: meaning that the built up market energies might be dispersed into the rest of the market and globally when the rest of the sectors are kept ‘healthy; thus, a market must be seen from most angles to be censured in a certain position. The fundamental Market Tools are financial. lending, fiscal and some regulation that let say would shrink or expand access to some production or purchasing of i.e. products, services; the Central Banks current Monetary Policies of raising or lowering Prime Rates are considered to general equilibrium by having effect on all sectors in many cases that are not overheating or too underfunded – the Market Economics considers using Sectors i.e. Parts Equilibriums to fighting over or under heating of these Sectors! Approach currently used by the Chinese Central Bank to prevent the Real-Estate Overheating they raised the LTV requirement on the first house, and actually prohibited the second home landing simultaneously not allowing the developers to play with unit pricing – to hold on the declared prices. The idea was to cool down the supply alone with the demand until the dead brunches of oversupply is extinguished. It is considered a successful approach.
The probabilities for Market Development without prompting high Inflation/Deflation is not unrealistic and somehow was done by China: by targeted subsidies and by the State owned Companies’ raisin salaries to raise income is successful to certain extend; even though, China has one of the world’s highest levels of income inequality, with the richest 1 per cent of households owning a third of the country’s wealth, a report from Peking University has found. The poorest 25 per cent of Chinese households own just 1 per cent of the country’s total wealth, the study found, the Disposable Personal Income in China increased to 31195 CNY in 2015 from 28844 CNY in 2014. Disposable Personal Income in China averaged 8046.18 CNY from 1978 until 2015, reaching an all time high of 31195 CNY in 2015 and a record low of 343.40 CNY in 1978. Disposable Personal Income in China is reported by the National Bureau of Statistics of China. That in all accounts must be considered successful, yet.
Market Economics will work at best a open democratic market: the freedom of ideas and the avoidance of any oppression make individuals advanced and more initiative risk taking, advantageous and forwarding who put under the right conditions would advance far beyond the alternative thinking.