En términos anualizados, como China, más de un 9 %
“most analysts anticipate that a major driver of the German economic expansion was an increase in net exports. Part of this is due to the decline in the value of the euro, which made German-produced goods less expensive, but some of it is directly attributable to stimulus spending in the U.S. and China. When a hypercompetitive, high-end manufacturing base like Germany sees major trading partners increase government expenditure, the optimal policy response is to do nothing. Some of the increase in external demand will translate to increased exports, providing a boost to the domestic economy without a penny of additional borrowing
En este artículo del Washington Post se refleja que, efectivamente, el incremento de las importaciones en los EE.UU ha reducido el crecimiento económico de este país.
Y por qué reducir el déficit público es lo que hay que hacer
For more than thirty years, economists have pointed to the “fiscal illusion” on which stimulus depends. … fiscal stimulus depends on households and business being ignorant to, or ignoring the fact that, debt-financed government expenditure eventually requires higher taxes to pay back the borrowing. If businesses and households recognize this and adjust their investment and consumption accordingly, a dollar of stimulus spending could contribute less than a dollar to GDP after accounting for the reduction in private sector consumption and investment. Research has found that as public debt levels increase, the private sector response to additional stimulus is more pronounced (o sea, que responde reduciendo más intensamente su consumo e inversión). Eventually, the decline in investment and consumption could exceed the positive economic contribution of the stimulus. In these cases, the government can actually increase output by reducing public spending and cutting its budget deficit (see the cases of Denmark, Ireland, Sweden, Canada, and Norway, among others).
Tiene lógica. Las deudas que contraiga el Estado las tienen que pagar, al final, los ciudadanos vía impuestos porque el Estado no genera ingresos de otra manera. Por lo tanto, los ciudadanos, cuando deciden cuánto gastar, incluyen en su previsión de deudas también las deudas del Estado de manera que si estas aumentan, invertirán y consumirán menos aumentando su nivel de ahorro. Y cuanto más desatado esté el gasto público, mayor será el pánico de los ciudadanos frente a futuras subidas de impuestos. Y miren lo que dice de los Estados federales como EE.UU o España
Simply put, the private sector responds to an additional dollar of debt much differently depending on the perceived sustainability of public finances. In states like California, where the deficit is exceedingly large and of a structural nature, federal funds allow state officials to delay the day of reckoning. This may allow more state workers to remain employed, but does nothing to attenuate the uncertainty facing businesses concerned about how tax rates will be adjusted to close the deficit. While the reduction in public sector payrolls absent stimulus would undoubtedly crimp demand. This is likely more than offset by the private sector investment and consumption lost from a continuation of the unsustainable status quo. In these situations, large spending cuts can offer the most reliable stimulus because of the signal to the private sector that less of its future earnings will be needed to finance government.
O sea, que o las CC.AA dan muestras claras de austeridad, o la reducción de actividad por parte del sector privado en España podría (i) anular cualquier efecto expansivo del estímulo fiscal y (ii) retrasar la recuperación. Porque el problema no es el de la cuantía del estímulo, sino de cómo se financia – a base de deuda – y, al final, toda la deuda, pública y privada, tienen que pagarla los ciudadanos, una parte directamente y otra vía impuestos.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario