Dear Mr.
President,
I have been
Reading the Alert Mechanism Report 2015 prepared by the Commission and I have
reviewed your MIP Scoreboards in the statistical annex with interest. Several
inconsistencies caught my attention. If I am reading correctly, you are
expecting all countries to meet the following constraints:
·
The
three-year average of the current account balance as a percentage of GDP should
remain within the boundaries of -4% and +6%.
·
Private
sector debt as a percentage of GDP should be less than 133%.
·
Private
sector credit flow as a percentage of GDP, consolidated, should be less than
14% of GDP.
·
General
Government Sector Debt as a percentage of GDP should be less than 60%.
The following macroeconomic identity always holds true:
(S-I)+(T-G)=(X-M),
where
S=Savings of the private sector,
I=Private sector investment,
T=Tax revenues,
G=Government spending,
X=Exports of Goods and services,
M=Imports of Goods and Services.
or, put in words, the net private sector savings less investment plus the government
surplus/deficit is equal to the current account balance.
In the case
of Spain, you expect the private sector debt and the government sector debt to
fall simultaneously below the aforementioned thresholds. This implies that you
are requiring (I-C)+(T-G)>0, so, by definition, the current account balance
(X-M) should be markedly positive. It puzzles me that in your scoreboard you
are not then requiring a current account balance as a percentage of GDP that is
greater than, say +3%. Surprisingly, for Spain, you seem to consider that her
small current account deficit meets the thresholds, which is inconsistent with
the desired private and government debt reductions.
In the case
of Germany, you seem to consider that the Government sector debt is a problem.
If the goal is to obtain a public surplus [ (T-G)>0 ] logically it follows
that, either the private sector reduces their current savings (S-I)
<0, or the country must generate an even higher current account surplus.
However, 1) you set no goal for an increase in private sector debt and 2) your
scoreboard marks the German current account surplus as an imbalance, in other
words, you are requiring the country to, slightly reduce her surplus. Would it
not be more consistent to set a target for S-I, in other words, require a
reduction in German private net savings so that the desired Government surplus
does not accompany an even greater current account surplus?
Finally,
given that for Spain X-M should be strongly positive so that the private and
public debts decrease, how is that supposed to happen, if simultaneously you do
not require other countries with strong current account surpluses to reduce
them?
By
requiring all European countries to meet the same goals simultaneously, it
would appear that you are trying to square the circle. You should adjust the
scoreboards to each country’s situations and take a more holistic approach by
considering, not only internal imbalances, but also imbalances amongst the
different member countries. You could build a more consistent scoreboard in a
fashion such as the one following:
Germany
|
Spain
|
(S-I)<0
|
(S-I)>0
|
(T-G)<0
|
(T-G)>0
|
(X-M)<0
|
(X-M)>0
|
There would
be another way of getting closer to meet the thresholds: letting the
denominator, GDP, grow. That implies creating jobs and allowing Governments to
spend. But your thresholds are inconsistent with the goal of creating full
employment. In fact, it is obvious that the EU has no full employment goal
since a 3-year average of 10% seems to be your unambitious target. It is a
tragedy for the population of Europe that a useless goal, such as reducing
government debt in Germany, is a more important goal than creating jobs.
Sincerely,
Stuart Medina
Stuart Medina
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario
¿Quiere comentar la entrada o aportar algún dato? Me gusta oír lo que piensan mis lectores. No obstante, tengo que moderar los comentarios para evitar que trolls y faltones rebajen el tono del debate.