Wettbewerb ist das heilige Mantra der Marktwirtschaft. Existiert genug davon, dann werden sich alle Probleme in Luft auflösen. Ein gewisser Dr. Rolf Kroker on INSM Blog concludes that highly debt-burdened countries such as Greece have to be competitive. This is true in so far as they can only reduce this trade deficit. He has now launched a six-point plan:
to achieve his goal, sees the so-called "Pact for Competitiveness" six measures:
- The constitutional entrenchment of a debt brake
- The introduction of national crisis management regime for banks
- The adjustment of the pension system to demographic development
- The mutual recognition of education - and Berufsabschlüssen to promote labor mobility in Europe
- the absence of inflationary wage indexation
- The creation of a single base in corporation
The question is whether can actually break down these proposals, the inequality within the EU.
Point 1: One can think of a debt brake what you want. In any case, it takes the States the flexibility to act in crises. News I see the following problem. In order to achieve a debt stop there are growth and savings. With the savings, Greece is trying. In turn, breaks the economic power in the country. The investment return and unemployment is rising. An economic catching-up is different. During the long trough of the depression can grow the other EU countries continue. The distance does so rather than decrease.
Item 2: A national crisis management regime for banks is meant nice, but the EU will not help. Goal is to be the competition. For example, in Ireland lured banks into the country by granting them low taxes. The Ireland now purely should support national level, these banks, I think impossible. The pressure for a rescue will come from abroad. At the same time, no new debt is included. This may be a nice approach, but ultimately unrealistic. The states would have to consider in advance whether they could afford a crash of the banks or not. Accordingly, these are then approved. Designed in a free market, the more difficult.
Point 3: The adjustment of the pension system to demographic development promotes the competitiveness in my eyes. The increase in the retirement age makes sense in my mind if and when unemployment is very low is. Just then there are not enough people who produce the goods for the population. Interestingly, the rate of work / not work. As you can see that the working population to feed but must be more pensioners, but less unemployed. The country is more productive because people retire later is doubtful. Due to the higher number of people in the labor market, wage pressures are rising to the bottom. This leads to the decrease in wages. Repeating this consistently across all of Europe, nothing happens.
Item 4: This point is in my view a most absurd. For the people it is very desirable that they can move freely on the European market. For it is good if they find no problems abroad work. Why thus the competitiveness of poor countries is increased. In their interest would be if the well-educated people to stay in the country. The comparison to soccer suggests itself. Bayern Munich is not successful because they come from Munich. They are successful because they have the money to buy at the talented players. Through this talent she regularly win the championship and thus have to buy back money to the talent. An absolutely free labor market means that are paid for the talented players do not even need peeling. How this is to help small teams catch up with the great opening up not me.
Item 5: Wages should (at least in the private sector) between the company and employees are negotiated. If wages are rising less than inflation, then falling purchasing power. This is the effects of the austerity programs medium very close. Not all EU countries can export more net. Someone has to shoulder the imports. Since the strong countries will follow suit in the medium term, it increases with this method, neither the wealth nor the competition.
Item 6: I think with Heiner Flassbeck , which said something like: "The problem is not die Besteuerung, sondern was besteuert wird." Man kann zwar eine einheitliche Bemessungsgrundlage festlegen, aber wenn weiterhin von den Ländern definiert wird was zum Einkommen gehört und was nicht, dann wird es weiterhin kompliziert bleiben (Dividenden waren in Deutschland mal Einkommen). Man kann diesen Vorschlag also leicht umgehen.
Man sieht an dem Programm, dass es die Probleme im wesentlichen auf nationaler Ebene angehen will. Europa ist aber ein gemeinsamer Wirtschaftsraum mit einer einheitlichen Währung. All die vorgeschlagenen Elemente können (ob sinnvoll oder nicht) ebenso von den starken Ländern durchgeführt werden. Es herrscht also ein Wettbewerb zwischen Löhnen auf den Rücken der Arbeitnehmer. Innovation und Wohlstand wird dadurch nicht gefördert.
Chris
Point 1: One can think of a debt brake what you want. In any case, it takes the States the flexibility to act in crises. News I see the following problem. In order to achieve a debt stop there are growth and savings. With the savings, Greece is trying. In turn, breaks the economic power in the country. The investment return and unemployment is rising. An economic catching-up is different. During the long trough of the depression can grow the other EU countries continue. The distance does so rather than decrease.
Item 2: A national crisis management regime for banks is meant nice, but the EU will not help. Goal is to be the competition. For example, in Ireland lured banks into the country by granting them low taxes. The Ireland now purely should support national level, these banks, I think impossible. The pressure for a rescue will come from abroad. At the same time, no new debt is included. This may be a nice approach, but ultimately unrealistic. The states would have to consider in advance whether they could afford a crash of the banks or not. Accordingly, these are then approved. Designed in a free market, the more difficult.
Point 3: The adjustment of the pension system to demographic development promotes the competitiveness in my eyes. The increase in the retirement age makes sense in my mind if and when unemployment is very low is. Just then there are not enough people who produce the goods for the population. Interestingly, the rate of work / not work. As you can see that the working population to feed but must be more pensioners, but less unemployed. The country is more productive because people retire later is doubtful. Due to the higher number of people in the labor market, wage pressures are rising to the bottom. This leads to the decrease in wages. Repeating this consistently across all of Europe, nothing happens.
Item 4: This point is in my view a most absurd. For the people it is very desirable that they can move freely on the European market. For it is good if they find no problems abroad work. Why thus the competitiveness of poor countries is increased. In their interest would be if the well-educated people to stay in the country. The comparison to soccer suggests itself. Bayern Munich is not successful because they come from Munich. They are successful because they have the money to buy at the talented players. Through this talent she regularly win the championship and thus have to buy back money to the talent. An absolutely free labor market means that are paid for the talented players do not even need peeling. How this is to help small teams catch up with the great opening up not me.
Item 5: Wages should (at least in the private sector) between the company and employees are negotiated. If wages are rising less than inflation, then falling purchasing power. This is the effects of the austerity programs medium very close. Not all EU countries can export more net. Someone has to shoulder the imports. Since the strong countries will follow suit in the medium term, it increases with this method, neither the wealth nor the competition.
Item 6: I think with Heiner Flassbeck , which said something like: "The problem is not die Besteuerung, sondern was besteuert wird." Man kann zwar eine einheitliche Bemessungsgrundlage festlegen, aber wenn weiterhin von den Ländern definiert wird was zum Einkommen gehört und was nicht, dann wird es weiterhin kompliziert bleiben (Dividenden waren in Deutschland mal Einkommen). Man kann diesen Vorschlag also leicht umgehen.
Man sieht an dem Programm, dass es die Probleme im wesentlichen auf nationaler Ebene angehen will. Europa ist aber ein gemeinsamer Wirtschaftsraum mit einer einheitlichen Währung. All die vorgeschlagenen Elemente können (ob sinnvoll oder nicht) ebenso von den starken Ländern durchgeführt werden. Es herrscht also ein Wettbewerb zwischen Löhnen auf den Rücken der Arbeitnehmer. Innovation und Wohlstand wird dadurch nicht gefördert.
Chris
0 comments:
Post a Comment