France and other Karen Millen countries in the euro area are faced with the dilemma of how to reduce public deficits without jeopardizing the prospects for growth and employment? We propose that the objectives of government deficits are fixed in terms of structural, ie they are adjusted to reflect fluctuations in the economy. The Karen Millen Dresses calculation of the maximum allowed structural deficits each year for each country taking into account the difference between current growth and potential growth would be conducted by a panel of independent economists, http://www.karenmillen-malluk.com themselves selected and appointed by the European Commission. Indeed, most economic growth of a country lies below its potential growth over the deterioration of public finances is increasing, and therefore it is more important not to deteriorate further growth and employment maintaining budgetary targets inflexible, Karen Millen Outlet that is to say that does not take into account the economic cycle. So Spain is in recession. This recession much stronger than expected, resulting in worsening budget deficit calculated as a percentage of GDP. While the program European Stability of Spain laid down the deficit target to 4.4% of GDP in 2012 and 3% in 2013, these figures have become unreachable. Indeed, it rather provides a Spanish deficit amounting to 6.3% and 4.5% in 2012 and 2013. ECOFIN Eurogroup of mid-July has understood, that eventually push the target of 3% from 2013 to 2014. The Spanish effort to reduce the structural deficit remains intact (in the order of 2% per year in 2012-2013), but it is not compounded by cyclical effects. At least two reasons warrant that the fiscal targets set in structural terms, that is to say, corrected for the economic cycle. The first arises from the logic. The balanced budget target agreed by the agreement called fiscal compact March is calculated in structural terms. It is therefore illogical that the trajectories annual adjustment to this equilibrium are not calculated in the same way. The second reason, more substantial, is that the method of setting annual goals and inflexible nominal regardless of changing circumstances has the disadvantage of aggravating the effects of recessions instead of mitigating them. In fact, in order to maintain a nominal budget target, a country below its growth potential, and therefore sees its reduced tax revenues, budget must make an overcorrection, which is even more severe than the economy is depressed. It was then that engages the vicious circle of fiscal austerity that strengthens the deficit and simultaneously reduces the ability of government to invest in innovation and growth. For example, suppose that France decided to maintain its commitment to a nominal deficit of 4.5% of GDP in 2012 and 3% of GDP in 2013. This goal was included in the latest stability program submitted to the European Commission in April, and backed by forecasts of GDP growth of 0.7% in 2012 and 1.75% in 2013. But the current government forecasts are karen millen provided in July from 0.3% in 2012 and 1.2% in 2013. To meet the commitment of public deficits despite the growth outlook lowered, the supplementary budget contains measures (revenues and expenditures) equivalent to 7 billion euros in 2012 and it is expected that the 2013 budget includes measures corresponding to 30 billion euros in 2013. But these measures of fiscal consolidation will themselves have a depressive effect on growth, which will be lowered by almost 0.3 percentage points in 2012 and 0.9 points in 2013, which will lower government revenues of at least 2 billion euros in 2012 and 8 billion by 2013! And we do not consider here additional expenses incurred by an unemployment also increase sharply if we apply the rule of nominal 3% despite a growth rate in 2013 far below our potential growth rate of 1.5% year. Not correct our fiscal targets for the business cycle and led to deteriorating growth and employment. Strict adherence to budgetary commitments then calls for new austerity measures, which further degrade growth and employment. We are therefore here to risk a spiral where fiscal tightening and weakening growth fuel each other. The markets are very sensitive to this danger. Initially, they penalize the country which deviates from the original budget target. Then, prom dresses at the risk of a spiral, they attest - through higher interest rates - fiscal measures overcorrection. These rate increases themselves contribute to worsening the situation of public finances. Does the proposed change is sufficient to solve the problem? No. This change does indeed make sense to allow time for governments also seriously engaged in a process of structural reforms. Wanting to move to deficit indicators adjusted for effects of conditions without at the same time, undertake structural reforms would be perceived by the addition of European partners as an excuse not to engage these reforms, which would help to make this proposed change illegitimate . France in particular suffers from abnormally high structural deficits. These deficits result themselves inefficiencies in the functioning of the state: an excessive number of administrative levels; a stack of opaque subsidies, health insurance too expensive and permanent deficit, a pension system still imbalanced, a tax complicated and ineffective. If France wants to get its partners a change in the calculation of deficits is that all these sites must also address. In doing so, France not only reassure its partners in the euro area, but also markets, which reward the efforts of France in lower interest rates, karen millen dress which will strengthen the virtuous effects of these structural reforms on growth and jobs. While a rigid application of budget standards may jeopardize the growth and employment, the shift to standards adjusted to the economic cycle may help spur growth and employment, provided however, that time and the margin of additional flexibility that our reform their grants are used to implement structural reforms that are needed and can not wait. These structural reforms, the countries of northern Europe have already made. This enabled them not only to reduce their public deficits in the short term, but also to boost their growth potential and therefore their ability to maintain sound public finances, low interest rates and high levels of employment in the long term. Follow their example.
Fiscal targets prom dresses should also take into account the conditions
France and other Karen Millen countries in the euro area are faced with the dilemma of how to reduce public deficits without jeopardizing the prospects for growth and employment? We propose that the objectives of government deficits are fixed in terms of structural, ie they are adjusted to reflect fluctuations in the economy. The Karen Millen Dresses calculation of the maximum allowed structural deficits each year for each country taking into account the difference between current growth and potential growth would be conducted by a panel of independent economists, http://www.karenmillen-malluk.com themselves selected and appointed by the European Commission. Indeed, most economic growth of a country lies below its potential growth over the deterioration of public finances is increasing, and therefore it is more important not to deteriorate further growth and employment maintaining budgetary targets inflexible, Karen Millen Outlet that is to say that does not take into account the economic cycle. So Spain is in recession. This recession much stronger than expected, resulting in worsening budget deficit calculated as a percentage of GDP. While the program European Stability of Spain laid down the deficit target to 4.4% of GDP in 2012 and 3% in 2013, these figures have become unreachable. Indeed, it rather provides a Spanish deficit amounting to 6.3% and 4.5% in 2012 and 2013. ECOFIN Eurogroup of mid-July has understood, that eventually push the target of 3% from 2013 to 2014. The Spanish effort to reduce the structural deficit remains intact (in the order of 2% per year in 2012-2013), but it is not compounded by cyclical effects. At least two reasons warrant that the fiscal targets set in structural terms, that is to say, corrected for the economic cycle. The first arises from the logic. The balanced budget target agreed by the agreement called fiscal compact March is calculated in structural terms. It is therefore illogical that the trajectories annual adjustment to this equilibrium are not calculated in the same way. The second reason, more substantial, is that the method of setting annual goals and inflexible nominal regardless of changing circumstances has the disadvantage of aggravating the effects of recessions instead of mitigating them. In fact, in order to maintain a nominal budget target, a country below its growth potential, and therefore sees its reduced tax revenues, budget must make an overcorrection, which is even more severe than the economy is depressed. It was then that engages the vicious circle of fiscal austerity that strengthens the deficit and simultaneously reduces the ability of government to invest in innovation and growth. For example, suppose that France decided to maintain its commitment to a nominal deficit of 4.5% of GDP in 2012 and 3% of GDP in 2013. This goal was included in the latest stability program submitted to the European Commission in April, and backed by forecasts of GDP growth of 0.7% in 2012 and 1.75% in 2013. But the current government forecasts are karen millen provided in July from 0.3% in 2012 and 1.2% in 2013. To meet the commitment of public deficits despite the growth outlook lowered, the supplementary budget contains measures (revenues and expenditures) equivalent to 7 billion euros in 2012 and it is expected that the 2013 budget includes measures corresponding to 30 billion euros in 2013. But these measures of fiscal consolidation will themselves have a depressive effect on growth, which will be lowered by almost 0.3 percentage points in 2012 and 0.9 points in 2013, which will lower government revenues of at least 2 billion euros in 2012 and 8 billion by 2013! And we do not consider here additional expenses incurred by an unemployment also increase sharply if we apply the rule of nominal 3% despite a growth rate in 2013 far below our potential growth rate of 1.5% year. Not correct our fiscal targets for the business cycle and led to deteriorating growth and employment. Strict adherence to budgetary commitments then calls for new austerity measures, which further degrade growth and employment. We are therefore here to risk a spiral where fiscal tightening and weakening growth fuel each other. The markets are very sensitive to this danger. Initially, they penalize the country which deviates from the original budget target. Then, prom dresses at the risk of a spiral, they attest - through higher interest rates - fiscal measures overcorrection. These rate increases themselves contribute to worsening the situation of public finances. Does the proposed change is sufficient to solve the problem? No. This change does indeed make sense to allow time for governments also seriously engaged in a process of structural reforms. Wanting to move to deficit indicators adjusted for effects of conditions without at the same time, undertake structural reforms would be perceived by the addition of European partners as an excuse not to engage these reforms, which would help to make this proposed change illegitimate . France in particular suffers from abnormally high structural deficits. These deficits result themselves inefficiencies in the functioning of the state: an excessive number of administrative levels; a stack of opaque subsidies, health insurance too expensive and permanent deficit, a pension system still imbalanced, a tax complicated and ineffective. If France wants to get its partners a change in the calculation of deficits is that all these sites must also address. In doing so, France not only reassure its partners in the euro area, but also markets, which reward the efforts of France in lower interest rates, karen millen dress which will strengthen the virtuous effects of these structural reforms on growth and jobs. While a rigid application of budget standards may jeopardize the growth and employment, the shift to standards adjusted to the economic cycle may help spur growth and employment, provided however, that time and the margin of additional flexibility that our reform their grants are used to implement structural reforms that are needed and can not wait. These structural reforms, the countries of northern Europe have already made. This enabled them not only to reduce their public deficits in the short term, but also to boost their growth potential and therefore their ability to maintain sound public finances, low interest rates and high levels of employment in the long term. Follow their example.