Today, those born in the seventies we approach middle age with a severe disability, with most of the uncertainties about the future because there is no guarantee, not success, but a tangible alternative. While senses and have the disorientation of the political leaders, whose moral integrity or intellectual can legitimately doubt, perceived lack of opportunities that others did: our parents, which grew from nothing in a world where everything was up.
Today's crisis is largely attributable to the lack of entrepreneurial awareness among decision makers. Our parents found prosperity in the liberal response. When Spain was liberalized, the old social problems, poverty, illiteracy, etc., Able to fight through economic growth, which provided the resources to employ more people and to generate public goods that articulates the welfare state. It was JK Galbraith who established the idea that growth is financed by public services. However, and even noted the failure of planned economic systems (the collapse of communism), many intellectuals and politicians who insist that economic growth should be restricted, because he responsible for the spoliation of the environment decompensation of demographic, economic imbalances. The notion of a society of affluence has been criticized by many liberals, including the classic Stuart Mill, who called on states to seek and promote growth zero economic, leading to steady state. These liberals, therefore, interpreted the excessive greed would be a target undesirable, even harmful to society. Does it come the great financial crisis to account those who criticized the affluent society? In my opinion, yes.
The current crisis represents a double threat to us, as embodied in the vulnerability of the welfare state and the weakness of the single currency, the euro. There is an irrefutable fact, the debt crisis (here and elsewhere) has been the fundamental factor in the lack of assets. Countries have had many years thanks to cheap credit, creating a debt structure giant, banks could not bear. We only know the European wars of books, we see how Europe remains particularly vulnerable to the global financial crisis, when it has been more than two long years since its inception. The financial crisis, therefore, interferes in our economy, even though ours is a capitalist system inserted in the European Union, whose raison d'etre has been sustained and sustainable growth in order to maintain the welfare state. It is obvious that the collapse of the monetary union would be devastating, because the amount of interest in the survival of the euro beyond what we can say. As for the state welfare, it seems doomed, at least, to reinvent itself, and that sooner or later will have serious financial problems.
Europe is risky, Europe was willing to risk conceiving after monetary union to political union with all the inequalities and asymmetries between Member States familiar. In the mid-twentieth century Europeans were able to forge a protective state model, consolidating the European middle classes. Similarly, the leaders of the late twentieth century Europeans pushed for the sustainability of a monetary union, with complex and risky political implications. It consolidated the government experiment governments.
Monetary union is the paradigm of renunciation of power control that gave money to states and submission to a European Central Bank, devoid of political power, but vigilante obsessed with price stability. The evolution of the single currency has led to parallel legislation, directives limiting the economic maneuverability Member States to give up direct power, just as a federation of political capacity is split between center and periphery.
I've always been in favor of a system of fiscal federalism in the European Union, regional financial instrumented, such as structural and cohesion funds. Although this point is controversial, and the Germans can not publicly acknowledge, in my opinion in the EU the redistribution is done through the cohesion funds, in the sense of foregone once perceptive regions no longer eligible, because they improve regional income level. So cohesion funds do not redistribute income, but they do regional incomes converge, regardless of the personal income of its inhabitants. Technically, however, the redistribution concerns via personal income tax. If the desideratum is that economic policy should be supranational, it is clear that there should be some centralized redistributive effect. To this should be delegated fiscal policy to Brussels today utopia, but as each day passes ... less.
impositions from Brussels calls are actually encouraged by political decisions, not just survival of the euro, but a terribly fragile economic system in the context of economies that are no longer competitive as ours. The markets continue to decide the allocation of capital, but the markets always bet for competitive economies, which offer them security. The functioning of markets can only partially be intuitive, but it is too complex (even chaotic) and to allow governments to interfere to the point of avoiding chaos. The market tends to reward good results, guarantees of future competitiveness, ie the reward is better placed, but also can make mistakes in their decisions, tend to abusive behavior.
is a fact that there is a risk of market abuse on the weak economy. This requires government intervention. I have no doubt. If you support the regulation of global financial markets, if I defend the good regulation that avoids the side effects of this excessive wealth, I also consider it necessary to rethink the state. Apart from economic and political effectiveness of the states, is a evidence that the welfare state is at risk of becoming an insatiable machine, able to spend money very quickly, absorbing much of the economic growth of a nation. Furthermore, in the English case, the structure of private debt ultimately affects the state, which had to bail out many banks to avoid collapse and a possible long recession. Know that we still do not know exactly what is the rate of bad debt in our country.
Today, many gatherings English discussion revolves around the survival of the state of the autonomies. The debate is very relevant. It remains to be seen whether the English autonomous system has become a structural constraint to economic growth. Would probably have to sacrifice some of the regional administrations, those that are not well dimensioned. The state of autonomy, of dubious effectiveness, has dramatically increased costs and is doubtful you have corrected the economic and social disparities. It is possible that the autonomous parliaments have tended to sobrelegislar, when what is expected of a decentralized administration is managed in accordance with the rules central / federal / supranational. In any case to limit the temptation to sobrelegislar the center of power that constrain abuses of the center but not that sobrelegisle.
If the market unit defined by the European boundaries, there is no doubt that the central state in Spain should be painted very little. The European standard premium and the Member States have to strip them of powers no longer have any sense, when the major regulations that affect the market and the economy are delegated to supranational bodies. In Spain, moreover, there is a clear asymmetry between autonomy with self-management and self-financing capacity, and autonomy that clearly make no sense, putting us in a scenario of variable geometry. I admit is a concept not too lucky, when the aim is just political integration at European level, but describes well the English reality.
At European level, horizontal division of powers exists. There is a Luxembourg court exercising judicial power over the whole territory of the EU, ensuring the application of Community law. This affects all areas where it has made political delegation to Brussels. The European Parliament decision grows in power every time you update a Treaty of Union, although it remains the Council, Member States are, which marks policy decisions of great significance, not to mention the influence the Franco-German axis, just taking shape in a de facto asymmetry. In a sort of uneasy calm, everyone knows that the single currency has too many implications to now new battles over who holds the real power. The idea of \u200b\u200ba federal Europe has practical consequences, first centralized decision prevents chaos, and the other located to optimize management efficiency, sustained transfers of funds with a clear role of catching-up between regions. In Spain you have to deal with this debate that, properly understood, is the antithesis of excessive bureaucracy. As the European integration project, the process of reform of the regional administration in Spain involve waivers and pragmatism. And it appears that, despite being militant federalist Europe, extend this reflection even those who despise federalism.
0 comments:
Post a Comment