1 in 2010 in the bearing according to Brussels from 35 million of turnover and strongly increased in 2008Are two thorny issues innovation and the customer relationship56 Of 742 respondents share this analysisThe actors are not to incriminate himselfThe policy of the ECB is part of this frameworkof the objectives of economic efficiency and equityOver a 100 index is applied an allowance of 0Economists sometimes take us for children3 last year where it is established to 2In lot of strange events of the past weeks, most striking is undoubtedly the strong opposition of the Republican party in the Obama Government to prevent the unemployment rate to climb up to 10. Yet, if McCain had won in November, it would have proposed a similar stimulus plan, always based on a budget deficit (with possibly more tax breaks and spending less) which have been approved by the Congress with the unanimous agreement of the Republicans.
As well as n. Gregory Mankiw said in 2003, then economic adviser to President Bush, a recovery plan is not the exact sciences. Spending that dig the deficit during a recession, he said, "serve to maintain the application associate for goods and services." This is not new. It is a usual shortcut to a stabilization in the short term, it appears in the major treaties of economy...
I can understand without being in agreement the stimulus opponents who believe that the situation is not a total disaster, that decided by the Government spending will occur only slowly and be a waste, while targeted tax breaks would be most effective. They would have preferred that the Obama proposal is dismissed even reconsider in two months.
In the same way, I understand those who believe that the recovery plan will do little effect in the short term, while the budget deficit of America requires a long term policy to alleviate the debt economy.
But I do not understand the argument that is to say that the stimulus plan will be inoperative: the Government will spend money, households will benefit from tax reduction and would be without effect on employment and production. It is surprising to see that a current of thought considers that fiscal stimulus are never successful.
This refusal is not only the politicians who hope to benefit from a systematic opposition, it does not reflect a consistent political position left or right. The opponents to any horsehair stimulus I met on my way, include fundamentalists of the market economy such as Eugene Fama at the University of Chicago, Marxists such as David Harvey of the City University of New York, classic like Robert Barro of Harvard economists, eccentric as Benn Steil from Council on Foreign Relations and many others.
They believe that the expenses of the State can succeed in stimulating the economy. This view seems incomprehensible to me, they give me the impression of burying their heads in the sand.
Early 1996, the unemployment rate was 5.6 in the USA. Companies and US investors then discovered Internet. In four years that followed, the expenses of the United States in the information technology sector soared, from $ 281 billion 446 billion dollars per year, while the unemployment rate declined from 5.6 to 4 and real growth rate of the economy was 4.3. The boom in investment in new technologies to provide work for a growing number of unemployed.
In early 2004, US banks have discovered that they could borrow money cheaply in Asia and use it in the United States for providing mortgages to high performance by using a sophisticated to protect all financial engineering risk at least that is what they believed. The next two years, spending in the residential real estate increased from 624 billion to $ 798 billion, while unemployment decreased by 5.7 to 4.6 and real growth rate was 3.1.
Therefore, many people in the United States decided to spend more. Are you still say that they have exaggerated, they were affected by "irrational exuberance" and that it was no one to say "Stop". But one cannot deny the reality of this increase in spending, declining unemployment that she has driven and some four million productive and well-paid jobs created through the development of new technologies and the real estate boom.
The money of the State is the same as any other. If the enthusiasm of enterprises to invest in high-tech gadgets and that of households to purchase homes boosting employment and production, what argument Harvey, Fama, Barro, can Steil and company advance to tell that the money of the State do There is not.
