The chart below compares projected 2010 deficits to net public debt, both
expressed as a percentage of GDP. Nations below the diagonal line risk
falling into financial distress. The diagonal represents two risk factors as
a single measure: (1) the larger your public debt, the more precarious your
position, and (2) the greater your current deficit (below zero) the faster
your financial position will deteriorate. The US, for example, with net debt
below 60 percent is in the same risk category as Italy, because it is
running larger deficits. Greece and Japan are obviously in the worst
position, but the UK and Ireland*, with deficits greater than 10 percent,
risk joining them within the next five years.
*Ireland and Greece announced measures to reduce their national deficit
which are not taken into account in the OECD projections. Whether Greek
austerity measures are sufficient to rescue them from the red zone is
questionable, and may merely serve to slow their rate of descent if further
steps are not taken.

For the technically minded, I have used the projected change in net public
debt levels rather than the budget deficit. There are subtle differences,
with budget deficits often understating the increase in national debt
levels.

The Two Ds
Governments in financial distress, generally where public debt exceeds GDP,
have two "quick fixes" available to them:

1.. default; or
2.. debase the currency.
Default, informing creditors that you are unable to repay them, is the
simplest option, but leads to financial distress, not only for creditor
banks, but also for the nation itself. Defaulting nations lose access to
normal trade credit, severely restricting international trade.

Debasing the currency through inflation is only effective where debts are
denominated in the national currency - not an option for members of the
European Monetary Union, such as Greece. While it may seem the easy way out,
the cost is financial instability, higher interest rates and higher
unemployment.

The High Road
The long hard road back from financial distress through austerity is a third
option. Surpluses, generated by cuts in expenditure or increased taxes, can
be used to pay down debt over time. Australia set this as a goal during the
Howard era, paying off its entire public debt within a decade.

The key is to provide a stable financial base to encourage real growth in
GDP - that is private sector growth, not jobs funded out of present or
future taxes. GDP growth has a double payoff: not only raising tax revenues
to generate a larger surplus, but also lowering the debt to GDP ratio -
making the debt more affordable.

http://i50.tinypic.com/11tpno4.png

On 9 Mar, 17:40, "l'orsotoro " <orsoUNDERSCOREt...@yahooDOT.it> wrote:
> The chart below compares projected 2010 deficits to net public debt, both
> expressed as a percentage of GDP. Nations below the diagonal line risk
> falling into financial distress. The diagonal represents two risk factorsas
> a single measure: (1) the larger your public debt, the more precarious your
> position, and (2) the greater your current deficit (below zero) the faster
> your financial position will deteriorate. The US, for example, with net debt
> below 60 percent is in the same risk category as Italy, because it is
> running larger deficits. Greece and Japan are obviously in the worst
> position, but the UK and Ireland*, with deficits greater than 10 percent,
> risk joining them within the next five years.
> *Ireland and Greece announced measures to reduce their national deficit
> which are not taken into account in the OECD projections. Whether Greek
> austerity measures are sufficient to rescue them from the red zone is
> questionable, and may merely serve to slow their rate of descent if further
> steps are not taken.
> For the technically minded, I have used the projected change in net public
> debt levels rather than the budget deficit. There are subtle differences,
> with budget deficits often understating the increase in national debt
> levels.
> The Two Ds
> Governments in financial distress, generally where public debt exceeds GDP,
> have two "quick fixes" available to them:
> * 1.. default; or
> * 2.. debase the currency.
> Default, informing creditors that you are unable to repay them, is the
> simplest option, but leads to financial distress, not only for creditor
> banks, but also for the nation itself. Defaulting nations lose access to
> normal trade credit, severely restricting international trade.
> Debasing the currency through inflation is only effective where debts are
> denominated in the national currency - not an option for members of the
> European Monetary Union, such as Greece. While it may seem the easy way out,
> the cost is financial instability, higher interest rates and higher
> unemployment.
> The High Road
> The long hard road back from financial distress through austerity is a third
> option. Surpluses, generated by cuts in expenditure or increased taxes, can
> be used to pay down debt over time. Australia set this as a goal during the
> Howard era, paying off its entire public debt within a decade.
> The key is to provide a stable financial base to encourage real growth in
> GDP - that is private sector growth, not jobs funded out of present or
> future taxes. GDP growth has a double payoff: not only raising tax revenues
> to generate a larger surplus, but also lowering the debt to GDP ratio -
> making the debt more affordable.
> http://i50.tinypic.com/11tpno4.png

ciao orsotoro
non ho capito l'immagine allegata.......
l'italia da un dato di debito di 92 % circa del pil e il pil a circa
-4% ! ! !
ma il dato esatto non è debito 118% e pil a -4,9 / 5% ? ?
help
Cordialmente
Rovettese

"Rovettese Rovettese" <rovettese@gmail.com> ha scritto

ciao orsotoro
non ho capito l'immagine allegata.......
l'italia da un dato di debito di 92 % circa del pil e il pil a circa
-4% ! ! !
ma il dato esatto non è debito 118% e pil a -4,9 / 5% ? ?


----> I dati riportati sono esatti perchè riguardano: "Projected 2010
Deficit as % of GDP" e "2009 Net Public as % of GDP"....

"l'orsotoro®" <orsoUNDERSCOREtoro@yahooDOT.it> ha scritto


....oltretutto la fonte è l'OCSE
http://www.oecd.org/home/0,2987,en_2..._1_1_1,00.html