Buy Magnetic Earring Findings

Lanes

Everyone agrees to observe the slippage of the structural growth of the state still exceeds the growth in the rest of the country's economy. Official experts and international observers have said everything about it and it was a theme of the last presidential campaign. There is no need to be a great economist to understand that such slippage when he is not corrected, leads mechanically to an increase in the debt and a decrease in the rate of structural growth of our country so that excuse to wait for the return of growth to make the necessary changes, is simply a dead end. Growth has become structurally weaker in countries where the weight of the state has passed a certain threshold considered critical. Worse, the loss began when he passed a new threshold that leads to indebtedness.
The community of economists is not in principle against the role of the state in the economy, despite debate as legitimate exist as inevitable about its priority tasks. Nothing is being Manichean: the issue is not about being for or against the intervention of the state. It is smarter to judge the long-term effectiveness of its action and sustainability of public finances. The state will find it easy to preach to the banks if he gets himself in a situation of insolvency.
is why economic theory stresses the importance of balance and stability, including stability of tax and public spending (or more precisely their share in GDP), which is a prerequisite for sustainable prosperity, not short-lived recovery. In this case, the size of the state must grow in proportion to the size of the economy which it is inextricably part . Otherwise, the state eventually phagocytize the domestic economy. And the state has nothing to gain by asphyxiation, the risk of ruining the economy that finances it.

However, the situation never changes the course. When growth returns, we are told, with a lot of media propaganda, that reforms are no longer necessary (since growth is there) and that the state must intervene to distribute the fruits of growth, the latter generating unequal performance, and hence income inequality. Remember when Jospin was prime minister, official reports we showed that the pension reform in particular, and social security in general, was no longer necessary thanks to the return of economic growth, a source of increased contributions.
When a crisis occurs (and I speak of crisis in France since 1973), the same sing the chorus of "late capitalism" and "illusion liberalism, and the State intervenes to regulate most beautiful and revive the economy. Incidentally, this capitalism that everyone decries, everyone tries to save him at the slightest failure of growth.

In these circumstances, it never goes out of a heavier involvement of the state, whether in the form of increased government levies or increased regulation. In France, it is not known to think differently or act differently. And as the media, despite the multiplicity of channels, radios or newspapers, like the National Education, format our minds as meaning the name of civic morality, it is difficult to address economic reality from a different angle.