lunedì 12 luglio 2010

Tagli o stimoli? Austeri o spendaccioni? Mah...

Il tormentone del 2010? Tagliare i deficit o sostenere l'occupazione! Ne parla oggi
il Wall Street Journal che tuttavia vede il dibattito focalizzarsi sul binomio austerità/crescita, e influenzare le decisioni del comitato di Basilea sull'adeguatezza del capitale delle banche. Ne discutono David Brooks e Gail Collins in questo articolo sul New York Times
Se invece volete concentrarvi sul problema del debito,
qui potete assistere a un duetto sul tema tra Brad De Long e Michael Kinsley.

Dalle colonne del Wall Street Journal Mohamed El-Erian analizza la disoccupazione U.S.A. Secondo  El-Erian l'occupazione è diventata un indicatore economico che anticipa il mercato:
Almost half of unemployed Americans have been without a job for over six months. The average duration of unemployment, which hit a post-World War II record many months ago,
continues to go up. Last month it clocked in at 35 weeks. Unemployment is particularly
severe among the young: A quarter of Americans between 16 and 19 years old in the labor market
are without a job.

The longer it takes to understand and address these issues, the more likely the U.S.
will get stuck in a protracted low growth/high unemployment trap. In addition to considering
the welfare cost of substantial joblessness, policy makers should keep in mind the following
four facts:

First, persistently high unemployment erodes the skills of any labor force, especially when
joblessness is a big problem among the young. This reduces future productivity and growth potential.

Second, a high rate of joblessness puts pressure on inadequate social safety nets like the
unemployment benefit system. It also exacerbates the strain on government budgets already
stretched at both the federal and state levels.

Third, stubbornly high unemployment makes those who are employed more cautious.
By spending less, they aggravate the economic slowdown.

And finally, high unemployment has historically induced companies and countries to become
more inwardly oriented. Many firms have already moved to a "self-insurance" mode,
including holding large cash balances rather than investing in equipment and hiring people.

Put all of this together, and you begin to get a sense of the importance of the employment
reports. They are more than indicators of what has happened; they also shed light on what
will likely happen going forward. (...)

The U.S. is in the midst of major internal and external realignments for which parts
of the labor force are unprepared. Internally, the economy is adapting to an
environment of lower credit, general deleveraging, higher regulation and future tax
increases. Externally, it is adjusting to the impact of emerging economies like China,
and the fact that certain European countries are facing increasingly unsustainable
debts and deficits.

To remain successful, firms have no choice but to adapt. (...)

Instead of simply debating the case for further government stimulus, policy makers
should also come up with a comprehensive strategy that focuses on improving
human capital, particularly through a greater emphasis on education and training;
expanding infrastructure and technology investments, in part by creating a more
friendly tax system; encouraging a bigger translation of scientific advances
into economy-wide productivity gains; and better protecting the most vulnerable
segments of society.

By presenting a multiyear policy proposal, lawmakers will help companies and
individuals navigate what is currently a highly fluid and uncertain outlook.
The longer this is delayed, the greater the damage that will result from today's
tragic employment picture.

Volete una mia previsione? Si taglieranno i deficit e si sosterrà l'occupazione, le banche potranno ricapitalizzarsi in 10 anni o più continuando a distribuire bonus a destra e a manca, ma purtroppo non funzionerà nè l'una nè l'altra cosa, specialmente in Europa. Volete sapere perchè? Ma vi sembrano domande da fare? In che mondo vivete...!

1 commento:

gg ha detto...

secondo me la posizione dei repubblicani usa è folle. meglio la posizione di krugman...