Caution! The site can't guarantee, that text has age permission. The site is not recommended, if you are less than 18 years old.
The site shows example sentences for English words. How the word or phrase could be used in a sentence?
" ... But here's the rub. In order for those automatic stabilisers to amount to a couple of percent of GDP the gross amount flowing through that common eurozone treasury has to be up at 15 to 20% of GP. It's got to be the sort of size as the US Federal government. And Europe just isn't going to do that. There is simply no manner possible, not for at least a century, in which Germany is going to agree to pay 20% of GDP to Brussels so that Brussels can allocate it across Europe. Even if the bulk comes back to Germany again, it's just not going to happen. Nor, of course, would France or any other eurozone nation. So while the diagnosis is sound it's simply not going to work just because the size of the reaction isn't possible. ... "
" ... Despite these limitations, companies are still asking "how and where do I pivot," "how do I respond," and in some industries, "how do I survive?" Just like a child who loses their stabilisers and realises they can ride on their own, companies who want to continue innovating, are realising that technology now means they can. Just like communication technology is helping them work effectively from home, access to real-time data and research-tech allows them to watch, analyse and act on the evolving needs and wants of their consumers. ... "
" ... I am generally against the basic Keynesian policy of expanding government expenditure in times of economic hardship. By this I don't mean the automatic stabilisers in the economy: when more people are unemployed then more people get unemployment insurance payments, that when more people have trouble affording food then food stamp expenditure goes up. Rather, I mean the idea that bad economic times mean that we should have new programs of such spending, or a relaxation of the rules governing those already extant. I also take this to mean that we shouldn't, in recessionary times, invent grand new schemes to spend more money that the government borrows to finance such spending. ... "
" ... The second economic reason this is wrong is because it's treating government finances like those of a household. The comparison is being directly made above. For what happens in a recession? Standard Keynesian (and every government is that these days) policy says that we should let the budget deficit blow out and borrow to cover it. Even if we don't go out and spend money wildly (which I don't advocate) we do know that tax revenues are going to fall. Hey, it's a recession, right? And we also know that spending is going to rise on unemployment pay and so on. Hey, it's a recession, right? This is all known as the "automatic stabilisers" and it is indeed just spending upon the current expenses of government. But it's also good debt, debt that the government should incur. Try and pay it back in the good times again of course, but the idea of cutting spending in a recession in order to balance the budget just isn't a good one. ... "
" ... You can increase the optimal area by having a common fiscal pot. Those automatic stabilisers of taxes and benefits produce just those fiscal effects we're looking for. The depressed region pays less into the common pot as profits droop, the unemployed pay less income tax and so on, while centrally financed benefits like unemployment pay, pensions and so on rise. ... "