The following quote inspired me to this discussion: "Conservative arguments (against Keynes's theory) are just a repetition of the Treasury Ministry's approach of the 1920s." Paul Krugman

Currently used anti-crisis state intervention programs, primarily specific instruments of socio-economic policy, including the fiscal policy of the Ministry of Finance / Treasury Ministry and the monetary policy of the central bank are aimed at reducing the scale of the economic recession caused by the development of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic (causing Covid disease -19) and activating economic processes to get out of the economic crisis faster. However, each program, each action also generates specific side effects, not always always positive. The macroeconomic costs will be an increase in inflation and an increase in the debt of the state finances system measured by an increase in public debt versus GDP and the central budget deficit. In many countries, the level of indebtedness of the state's finances will rise above safe levels according to the current standards of assessing the security of the state's financial system and assessing the risk of declaring the state's financial bankruptcy.

In view of the above, I ask the following questions:

- Will rating agencies change the standards of assessing the security of public finance systems if the debt levels increase strongly in most countries?

- To what level can the state incur debt by financing anti-crisis entrepreneurship recovery programs?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Please reply,

I invite you to discuss

Thank you so much for participating in the discussion,

Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

First one needs to a get policy that minimizes deaths. Once the population can safely return to economic activity You have the first step finished..

Thanks for the taught provoking topic.

Generally, the fastest approach is medical. The death rate is still spiking, there is uncertainty, fear and ill health. The labour force need to be redeemed. So there is a need to invest more on drugs, vaccines and public health programmes.

It is unpredicted when the world will reach the peak on the pandemic, when the curve will flatten or start to decline.

However, fiscal and monetary policy should be rolled out to avoid a total collapse of the economy while on lock down. Remote and small staff enterprise can start production while interstate transportation of good are allowed, transportation of humans and animals disallowed.

In terms of micro and macro economic policies. Many states have different needs and priority areas. Before the pandemic, many countries in African were planning to borrow to fund capital projects, will they still borrow? Maybe yes, but this time they borrow for recurrent expenditures, personnel cost, small and medium enterprise support and even loan repay.

What happens to countries dependent on mono export commodity such as oil? Now what happens to their GDP and GDP per dept profile? The effect may be more severe than Nations that depends on agroeconomy and value added chain.

Summarily, the best intervention depends on the socioeconomic indexes of a particular state.

Thanks!

Dear dr. Dariusz Prokopowicz

Nice discussion.

Best regards

Dear dr. Ogochukwu Kelechi Onyeso

Very nice contributions

Best regards

Dear Dr. David Eugene Booth

Best

Once Marc Faber said: "My caveat to the current so-called government intervention called" resolving the crisis "is that it doesn't solve it, it only defers it." Marc Faber

Can these words be valid for current socio-economic, budgetary, fiscal and / or monetary anti-crisis programs?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Please reply,

I invite you to discuss

Thank you so much for participating in the discussion,

Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Stimulate those SMEs / entrepreneurs that can help a build a more sustainable and regenerative / distributive economic system, as this ultimately should bring back jobs help the environment and decrease inequality and social unrest. Redesign, instead of restore.

I suppose we need to use fiscal stimuli to recover economic growth and foster it in the long-term. Firstly, we should preserve and create jobs and promote economic recovery. Secondly, to provide investments by spurring technological advances in science and health. In addition, to invest in transportation, environmental protection, and infrastructure projects. It's vital to coordinate fiscal and monetary policy in order to ensure price stability and public debt security.

Macroeconomic data for the first quarter of 2020 are already appearing. These data vary considerably between countries. What can this mainly result from? Is the economic growth rate before the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19)? Is this mainly due to the varied scale of pandemic development and the impact on the economies of individual countries, which is structurally significantly different? Are these differences mainly related to slightly different instruments of state interventionism, a different scale of anti-crisis socio-economic policy programs used?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Please reply,

I invite you to discussion and scientific cooperation,

Thank you so much for participating in the discussion,

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

By reducing interest, increasing assumptions, and supporting troubled small businesses

In view of the above, the anti-crisis measures applied largely fulfill their role in limiting the scale of the decline in the economic growth of the national economy. Economic growth is one of the important components of economic development. Currently, due to the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (causing Covid-19 disease), the global economy has plunged into an economic crisis characterized by a strong economic downturn, a slowdown in economic growth and even a deep economic recession in many countries. Therefore, in addition to anti-pandemic and sanitary security systems and instruments, governments of individual countries also launched anti-crisis instruments of interventionist socio-economic policy, including fiscal, budgetary, monetary, social policy, etc. Thanks to these anti-pandemic and anti-crisis measures, the scale of pandemic development has been limited and slowed down and also the scale of the economic crisis has been reduced. The application of these programs in specific formulas, on a specific scale, was necessary. This is an interesting topic of scientific research, especially in terms of estimating the level of impact of anti-pandemic and anti-crisis measures used, and the positive effects obtained. Estimating these positive effects is not an easy matter and is therefore an interesting, good topic for research.

In view of the above, the current question is: How can you objectively examine the impact of anti-crisis instruments of intervention in socio-economic policy to assess the scale of the reduction in the development of the economic crisis caused by the development of the Coronavirus pandemic?

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Please reply,

I invite you to discuss

Thank you so much for participating in the discussion,

Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

... some rescue policies also cover emissions-intensive firms, such as airlines, that face bankruptcy or significantly reduced revenue as a result of COVID-19. Examples include Russian tax breaks for airlines (through the Anti-crisis Fund) (Ostapets et al., 2020)... Hepburn, C., O’Callaghan, B., Stern, N., Stiglitz, J., & Zenghelis, D. (2020). Will COVID-19 fiscal recovery packages accelerate or retard progress on climate change?. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 36.

… The Second Wave of Anti-Crisis Measures in Germany … economic repercussions from the coronavirus pandemic has prompted the German government to expand its intervention tools … Płóciennik, S. (2020). The End of “Black Zero”: The Second Wave of Anti-Crisis Measures in Germany.

All countries have set priorities and intervention policies. All underdeveloped countries and least developed countries Say for example their state needs to evaluate the factors and sources of affects on economic downturn. The State needs to also check the interdependence on other industries which can alter or pacify the effects. If for instance the reliance of their daily wage workers constitute majorly to the construction industry then the state will put in efforts to revive that industry by taking concrete measures like levies of taxes or low taxes on business activities related to the particular industry. In this way, several other interdependent industries related to construction will be put on track like cement industry, steel industry, real estate and housing etc. Moreover, one can also relate it with agricultural industry.

The developed countries can help and facilitate through bail outs and other intervention techniques.

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Thank you very much for participating in this discussion. I would like to add the following question to this discussion:

Will the second wave of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic cause another slowdown in economic growth, or will high budget interventionist social and social policies continue to be used, including non-returnable subsidies for companies if the state's debt level has reached the maximum level of 60% considered safe relative to GDP?

In some countries, high-budget anti-crisis programs of socio-economic policy usually referred to as Anti-crisis shields have consumed large amounts of money significantly increasing the level of public debt. In some countries, the level of public debt increased to the limit of the level of financial security, i.e. to about 60 percent. total state finance debt to GDP. Therefore, if the second wave of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus pandemic (causing Covid-19 disease) results in an analogous or greater slowdown in economic growth, then the possibilities of reviving economic processes under state interventionism, widely used social policy, subsidies for enterprises, maintaining places work in companies that have limited production, etc. will be very limited and the possibilities to stop the development of the next economic crisis will be very limited. Alternatively, the only solution will be a further easing of monetary policy, introducing additional, additional money into the public finance system and at the expense of increasing inflation, for a few months, economic growth will be a little more stimulated, but it will be very limited possibilities both during the intervention socio-economic policy and in financial terms .

In the context of the current SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic, the following important question arises: Will the second wave of the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic cause another slowdown in economic growth, or will high budget interventionist social and social policies continue to be used, including non-returnable subsidies for companies if the state's debt level has reached the maximum level of 60% considered safe relative to GDP?

Please reply,

What is your opinion on this topic?

Thank you very much and best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Already,the economy of the most of the countries are going on a negative scale.It's already becoming difficult to take most of the academic decisions. And,if a second wave of ccovid-19 hits then everything will be disastrous. In the present time enterpreneurship can be a good option to choose form...

Hello everyone, thank you for participating in the discussion. Of course, the key, fundamental issue, is the introduction of anti-pandemic safety instruments to stop the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic and reduce the scale of infections and people who die from Covid-19 disease. But since April 2020, many countries have parallel system policies, both anti-pandemic, social and health security, crisis management and interventionist socio-economic policies, the so-called Anti-crisis shields, which are to stop the strong increase in unemployment and the decline in economic activity of enterprises. Countries that implement all these policies more efficiently and effectively will both significantly reduce the scale of the pandemic development and the scale of the economic crisis. However, in some aspects it is not easy to implement all these policies simultaneously and depends on many variables. For example, when it comes to the effectiveness of the implemented anti-pandemic sanitary instruments (e.g. wearing protective masks, restrictions on moving in public places, home quarantine, temporary closure of some commercial facilities and institutions, etc.), the key issue is the general public awareness of the issue of solidarity, conscientious compliance with the imposed anti-pandemic restrictions, i.e. the attitude of citizens to social responsibility in this matter. while in terms of the effectiveness of the introduced interventionist programs, anti-crisis socio-economic policy, the key issue is the amount of funds available in the state budget, which the state can support enterprises by subsidizing wages in companies that have reduced the scale of economic activity and thanks to which subsidies have been saved jobs and restrained unemployment growth, decline in consumption, income, etc. It has been several months now that these various anti-pandemic and economic crisis-reducing policies and programs have been in operation. The scale of the pandemic has decreased in many countries since June. But due to the beginning of the tourist season, some anti-pandemic restrictions have been lifted. In recent days, in some countries, information has appeared in the media suggesting a significant increase in new infections with the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus. So there are questions whether the second wave of the pandemic is already starting or will it rather start at the end of 2020? Should the applied anti-pandemic security restrictions be restored and when should it be done? Will there be enough financial resources in state budgets to continue all these anti-pandemic security policies in the coming months and finance key medical, social, economic needs, etc.?

Therefore, the following question arises, to which one can already try to answer:

How do you evaluate the specific social security instruments introduced in individual countries, anti-pandemic restrictions, subsidy programs for citizens and companies to ensure subsistence, livelihood, reduce the scale of the pandemic development and reduce the scale of the economic crisis?

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, Please reply

What do you think about it?

Thank you very much and best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

We must understand that the current pandemic cannot be dissolved by traditional demand management policies. Very significant is the need to sustain livelihoods maintain jobs and also sustain demand. therefore what needs to be done is to create a lifeline fund from which we can cushion business and consumers by giving some sort of stipend

Further there will also be a need to invest on health infrastructure to mitigate against the effects of attack on vital skilled labour and reduce the fatalities. This should be accompanied by increased investment on research and development to develop a vaccine but this is a long term measure that would help to completely eradicate the virus from the face of the earth. Stability of the financial system would quaranteed smooth business operation and this is where monetary policy will come in handy

Dear Charles Mutuku,

I fully agree with you and thank you very much for participating in the discussion. Anti-crisis measures should be implemented simultaneously in many different areas. On the one hand, financial outlays for the health service should be increased in order to increase the preparedness of health care institutions for possible future waves of a pandemic. On the other hand, economic processes should be activated through anti-crisis, interventionist socio-economic, budgetary, fiscal and monetary policies in order to limit the economic downturn, limit the decline in GDP, limit the growth of unemployment, etc.

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear All, In the context of interesting considerations undertaken in this important topic, another important question arises regarding the relationship between the development of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, the preparation of the immune departments of the healthcare system, the applied anti-pandemic security instruments (including lockdown in the economy), health, social, economic effects etc .: Are there studies that show specific correlations or no correlation between the number of respirators in the health care system per number of citizens in a given country and the range of anti-pandemic safety instruments (including lockdown in the economy) used?

If a lockdown was applied in the economy, financial support for economic entities was also usually used in order to limit the scale of unemployment growth. The scale of the debt of the state's public finance system has increased and few countries are now (September 2020) deciding to reintroduce the lockdown.

But over the last few months, has it been possible to adequately increase the number of respirators in the health care system per number of citizens in a given country, so that there is no need to re-lockdown the economy?

What do you think about it? Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Colleagues and Friends from RG, About half a year has passed since the beginning of the development of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic in most countries of the world. In individual countries, knowledge and new, previously unknown experiences were developed in the field of building an integrated anti-pandemic risk management system in crisis management institutions. In addition, specific anti-pandemic and sanitary safety instruments were used, such as wearing protective masks, home quarantine, restrictions on the movement of citizens in public places, introduced temporary lockdown of the economy (e.g. closed shops, shopping centers, services, hotels, restaurants, museums, cinemas, galleries, city parks, offices and schools and universities providing education through e-learning, etc.) and specific instruments of interventionist, financial support for commercially operating economic entities from the funds of the state finance system. The so-called Anti-crisis shields so that the scale of unemployment growth was reduced by means of subsidies to the salaries of employees in companies, applied tax breaks, temporary exemption from paying contributions to the social insurance fund, etc., to reduce the scale of unemployment growth and thus reduce the scale of the economic crisis.

In view of the above, how do you assess the integrated anti-pandemic risk management system applied in your country, introduced during the 1st or 2nd wave of the pandemic lockdown of the economy, the applied instruments, the so-called Anti-crisis Shield?

Please reply

What do you think about it?

What is your opinion on this topic?

Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The Nation-State must stimulate new possibilities of development focused on human factors, such as the case of the SEP that is based on a people-centered approach aspiring at empowering people and communities and balance economic progress, environmental protection but also human needs. In this specific topic, I would like to suggest the following publication:

Book Post-COVID-19 Rebuilding Our Paradigms Through Sustainable D...

Dear Ernani Contipelli, I agree with you that the state should stimulate new opportunities for people-oriented development, aiming at empowering people and communities and implementing the principles of sustainable economic development, improving environmental protection systems, etc. Thank you for providing a link to an interesting publication on this subject. Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Thank you sir for this provoking question. The pandemic has come and its impact on human life, business and economy is totally negative. Therefore, there is need for (1) constant policy to reduce its impact and flatting its curve line with reduction in the rate of death. (2) continuous research and investment on vaccine production, health infrastructure and adequate public enlightenment on the impact of the pandemic and ways of minimising its spread. (3) government should design fiscal and Monetary policy to address the impact of the pandemic on the economy, business and human life with various provision to the citizens to cushion the effect (4) provision of loan and financial assistant to various

business sector of the economy to reduce their financial burden caused by the pandemic in order to reduce business failure and liquidation which will create negative impact on the economy. (5) the health workers should be adequately encouraged and motivated.

Dear Adekoya A. Augustine, Thank you very much for your participation in the discussion and interesting contributions to this discussion. Your statements and considerations on this issue are interesting. I am glad that we look at this issue in a similar way. I fully agree with you on this issue.

Best wishes, All the best, Stay healthy!

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The scale of the current (October 2020) increase in SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus infections, i.e. the development of the 2nd pandemic wave, is much faster than during the 1st pandemic wave of March - June 2020. Many countries are considering reintroducing partial or full periodic lockdown of the economy. Consequently, the 2nd wave of the pandemic could negatively affect the economy to an extent similar to the 1st wave of the pandemic. The question arises: What instruments under the subsequent so-called Should anti-crisis shields be introduced by the governments of individual countries to activate entrepreneurship?

Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Probably soon, i.e. within the next few months, the problem of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic can basically be solved. In recent days, positive, long-awaited information regarding the creation of a vaccine against Coronavius ​​has appeared in the media around the world. The information released to the media on November 9, 2020 shows that the pharmaceutical company Pfizer cooperating with the German biotechnology company BioNTech has declared that it already has a Coronavirus vaccine, which it will start producing in the near future, still at the end of 2020. The announcements made to the media show that in the next few weeks the production of highly effective (90 percent effective) doses of the vaccine may begin, which will reach many countries around the world. Research work is nearing completion. The final test phase 3 ends. Many countries have declared that they will purchase this vaccine. So perhaps in a few months the problem of the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic will be largely or completely solved. Therefore, economic growth should return in 2021. Thus, the level of entrepreneurship will also increase. Probably, it will not be the high level of economic growth that existed before the pandemic in 2019. But the improvement in the global economy should be significant.

Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Jaroslav Dvorak

Yes you are right. You have added some very interesting considerations to our discussion. Thank you for your participation in the discussion and for explaining your position on the issues of entrepreneurship activation instruments during the current economic crisis caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic and in the context of defining pro-development socio-economic policy that should be applied when the mentioned the coronavirus pandemic will either end in the future or its economic impact will be significantly reduced. Yes, the importance of planning and improving anti-crisis social and economic policies at the level of local government units is also very important. The structure of the fiscal system and the scale of fiscal decentralization are also important in this matter. I fully support your opinion.

Greetings, Have a nice day, All the best, Stay healthy!

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In the context of the above discussion, I ask you the following question: Which anti-crisis, pro-development socio-economic policy instruments turned out to be more effective than others in terms of activating entrepreneurship in the current economic downturn caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) pandemic?

What do you think about it?

Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

The period of publication of macroeconomic data for 2020 is now starting. The SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic caused a smaller or larger recession in the economies of individual countries in 2020. For the purposes of the comparative analyzes, such macro-determinants as: GDP, unemployment level, employment level, change in the level of production and services offered, change in the level of income of citizens and enterprises, change in the level of bank deposits, change in the scale of bankruptcies of economic entities, changes in the level of indebtedness of citizens and economic entities, inflation, consumption, international trade and international capital flows, etc. However, the key determinants describing the macroeconomic state of the economy are not fully comparable. For example, in the country where I live, the recently published (end of January 2021) macroeconomic data indicate that in December 2020 the unemployment level was slightly higher than the level from 2019 and for the average for the entire 2020, so it is growing. This is also confirmed by forecast analyzes, which show that the level of unemployment may, paradoxically, increase in the second half of 2021, despite the expected significant improvement in economic growth due to the fact that most manufacturing companies and a significant part of service companies have adapted to the new economic conditions caused by the Coronavirus pandemic SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19). This paradox is due to the fact that the scale of public aid for enterprises will be much smaller in 2021. The historically record-breaking, record-breaking financial aid to commercial economic entities from the funds of the state finance system (mainly on the basis of the repurchase of domestic treasury bonds by the central bank) will be lower in 2021 because the debt level of the state finance system is close to the prudential indicators defined in the international framework EU standards. The aforementioned unemployment rate for December 2020 was 6.2%. Economists agree that without public aid granted to enterprises in 2020 under the so-called anti-crisis programs of socio-economic policy, i.e. governmental Anti-Crisis Shields, Industry Shields, Financial Shields, this level of unemployment was at least a few percent. higher. Without this historically record-high scale of public aid for business entities, the scale of bankruptcies of enterprises and companies would be much greater. However, data from Labor Offices do not always present the facts. For example, entrepreneurs, in order to receive subsidies to the salaries of employees, instead of dismissing employees, they significantly reduced the working hours, exchanging e.g. full-time work into part-time. Therefore, the picture of the labor market presented on the basis of these data is not fully objective. Different countries may have different approaches to the formulas used and the calculation of unemployment, GDP, employment, income etc. Therefore, the question of full international comparability of macroeconomic data for 2020 is questionable.

What do you think? What's your opinion on this topic?

Regards, Have a nice day, Stay healthy!

Dariusz Prokopowicz

In Finland, lot of support and funding has been reserved for SME companies for change in the way how they utilize digitalisation as part of everyday business operations.

Lot of companies have been lucky for a decade, so that they have not been had to study new technologies and move from traditional customer service ways to new digital platforms. On the other hand, now when you need to keep distance and reduce meeting with people, these same companies are in problems in Covid-19 time.

Basically, the state is trying to help out to support SMEs to "catch up" the companies who have been adjusting naturally to remote and virtual world business models and customer support structures.

B.R.,

Ari

Dear Ari Happonen,

Yes, in Finland, digitization of offices, institutions and companies is carried out at a high level. The high level of digitization helps in the efficient adjustment of business activities, the activities of offices and public institutions, and the functioning of citizens to the realities of the pandemic situation. On the other hand, in a situation of economic downturn, interventionist, anti-crisis financial support for companies, including economic entities from the SME sector, may help in carrying out the necessary remedial and development restructuring, including the implementation of modern ICT, Internet and Industry 4.0 information technologies to specific spheres of business activity.

Thank you, Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

There should be incentives to create local products, not to rely on foreign imports, like vaccines for example. You have Canada that depends on vaccine imports instead of producing them internally.

dear dr. Dariusz Prokopowicz

Surveys show that SMEs and entrepreneurs are extremely worried about the impact of COVID-19 on their liquidity position and business survival, the most recent business surveys show some confidence improvements, possibly related to the significant policy efforts to address the SME liquidity gap and the lifting of lockdown measures

in a number of countries. In this context, the policy perspective is gradually shifting from liquidity support measures for SME survival, which still remains a priority in most countries, to support for recovery.

https://oecd.dam-broadcast.com/pm_7379_119_119680-di6h3qgi4x.pdf

Best regards

This policy tracker summarizes the key economic responses governments are taking to limit the human and economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. The tracker includes 197 economies. https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19

Check https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/06/02/countries-can-take-steps-now-to-speed-recovery-from-covid-19

Governments could go further and directly subsidize investments in medium-sized firms or in favored sectors of the economy that will struggle to raise equity otherwise. https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2020/apr/four-key-policy-tools-for-economic-recovery-during-covid-19.html

The combination of the economic damage from COVID-19 and the addition of large amounts of debt due to government programs will inevitably result in a surge of bankruptcies or other forms of restructuring. The US bankruptcy system is well designed for companies that hit severe, non-structural problems, but most nations have much more punitive approaches that destroy substantial value in these circumstances. Even in the US, bankruptcy courts likely will not be able to handle the surge in volume in an effective manner. https://www.oliverwyman.com/our-expertise/insights/2020/apr/four-key-policy-tools-for-economic-recovery-during-covid-19.html

Dear Michael Issigonis, Falah Khalaf Ali Alrubaie, Chinaza Godswill Awuchi,

Thank you for answering the question:

How can the state activate entrepreneurship to get out of the economic crisis faster after the SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus pandemic? What economic policy?

Thank you for providing links to interesting materials on the discussed issues of determinants of entrepreneurship activation and development of enterprises in the SME sector. You raised important issues in the context of the issues discussed. Yes, the activation of entrepreneurship and the creation of facilitations and financial support for enterprises from the SME sector are important factors in the interventionist, anti-crisis socio-economic policy aimed at limiting the scale of the economic downturn, economic recession, decrease in investment and income and increase in unemployment caused by the SARS-CoV coronavirus pandemic -2 (Covid-19). A particularly key issue of the currently conducted anti-crisis socio-economic, budgetary, fiscal, etc. policy is limiting the scale of unemployment growth and creating facilities for the implementation of remedial and development restructuring processes in enterprises from the SME sector, including investments in modern technologies, thanks to which economic entities improve their efficiency. and profitability of the conducted business activity. In individual countries, slightly different instruments of anti-crisis socio-economic policy may be used. What instruments of the anti-crisis socio-economic policy are used in your countries to activate entrepreneurship and support economic activity conducted in enterprises from the SME sector?

Thank you, Have a nice day, Stay healthy! Best wishes,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

We must change the paradigm for the economy to focus on online growth whilst limiting physical services.

Dear Rajkumar Rajendram,

Yes, the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic accelerated the digitization and internationalization of various areas of activity of economic entities and financial and public institutions.

Thank you, Greetings,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Dariusz Prokopowicz

Tax policy should continue to focus on limiting hardship while maintaining the ability for a quick rebound. This phase calls for fine-tuning and potentially expanding the set of policies already implemented. The costs of policy action may be high, but the costs of inaction are likely to be greater.

Businesses are increasingly exposed to solvency risks in addition to liquidity risks as the crisis continues. Policies should adapt to the changing nature of risks, and could include extending deferrals, expanded loss carry-backs which help loss-making firms, and accelerated VAT refunds. The design of these measures should avoid increasing non-compliance risks.

Tax support should be targeted to those that need help the most. While administratively costly, targeting may help improve outcomes over time by allowing stronger support where the need is most pressing. Support can focus on the hardest hit sectors. Small and medium-sized enterprises could be prioritised as they may be less able to withstand liquidity and solvency risks. Businesses where employment risks are pronounced could be targeted too, to limit adverse impacts on households and aggregate demand.

Apart from these interventions a strong push should be given towards development of green economy. The key economic challenges of a COVID-19 recovery plan will pivot around job creation and large-scale demand revival. Both can be effectively maneuvered by deploying green strategies. Investment in green infrastructure, spanning from energy-efficient retrofits to climate-resilient construction, can be a policy win-win as they offer short-term economic benefits as well as long-term climate dividends.

Dear Kisslay Anand,

Yes, I fully agree with you. You put it right. Tax policy should support the development of entrepreneurs and overcoming the economic recession caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic.

Thank you very much, Regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

Dear Hermann Gruenwald,

Yes, that's right, during economic crises, the competitive situation of individual companies and corporations changes. During the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, many large companies, corporations increased their market value on stock exchanges, improved their financial situation and importance in the markets.

Thank you very much, Best regards,

Dariusz Prokopowicz

On November 26, 2021, the media received information that a new variant of the SARS-CoV-2 Nu coronavirus had appeared in Africa. It is already known that it is much more contagious than the SARS-CoV-2 Delta coronavirus variant responsible for the 4th wave of the pandemic. It is probably resistant to mRNA vaccines. The mRNA vaccines produced antibodies that recognize the protein from which the spikes are made which cover the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus molecule. The new mutation has altered the protein structure that is not recognized and vaccines may prove ineffective. It's no wonder that stock exchanges around the world have seen strong declines in stock prices. An anxiety ensued, which may in its scale resemble the level of uncertainty at the start of the first wave of the pandemic. The World Health Organization has started research to verify whether this new variant of the SARS-CoV-2 Nu coronavirus is fully immune to mRNA vaccines. Tourism has been closed with countries in Africa in many countries. If this disturbing information is confirmed, when will pharmaceutical companies create a new version of the vaccine that will be highly effective against the SARS-CoV-2 Nu coronavirus? Some pharmaceutical companies already declared a year ago that they would be able to produce a new version of the vaccine within a few months. Before this happens, however, in many economies lockdowns may be introduced again on economic entities operating in the tourism, hotel, catering, etc. sectors. Perhaps the pace of economic growth will decrease significantly in the coming months. So what actions and programs of interventionist, activation of entrepreneurship will be restarted under the anti-crisis, financial public aid? In view of the above, I propose the following research topic: Determinants of the possible re-introduction of lockdowns and other anti-covid instruments to slow down the development of the pandemic and anti-crisis, interventionist entrepreneurship activation programs in the situation of a recurrence of the economic downturn caused by a new wave of the pandemic caused by the new variant of the SARS-CoV-2 Nu coronavirus.

Best regards,

Dariusz

State can do a lot,

but in the end, there is all the bureaucracy layers with the state.

Why not ask, what e.g. SME can do together to get out o "covid-19 rabbit hole"?

Many companies have been affected by covid, they are in need to do fast actions, so why not utilize digitalization and (digital collaboration) and act fast?

By all typical studies, all the companies, who are able to pivot fastest when change is knocking on the door, those are the companies which will do the best.

If the state offers support, nice, use that to boost your pivot, but do not start waiting for some one else to solve your (company) issues.

In the worst case, the state support does not offer too much for you, but a lot for the competition.

Make your own happy future, do not wait some one else to do it for yourself.

Dear Ari,

Yes you are right. Entrepreneurs operating in competitive markets know best under what conditions their companies can develop dynamically and how these conditions could be improved. The state, government, politicians, when planning specific pro-development activities supporting the functioning of companies and enterprises, should first conduct extensive public consultations, discussions, debates, surveys, etc. in order to develop the best solutions to support the development of entrepreneurship.

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz

Thanks for the interesting question.

I have been writing a piece on the impacts of Covid in the mining sector. In the way forward section, one of the suggestions/recommendations that I propose is that:

"It is important to prepare for recovery once the market begins to normalize. This should be done by developing plans that ascertain workforce requirements. It should also include determining how quickly workforce and work conditions can be re-established as required and developing a strategy to implement recovery plans".

Dear Bernard,

That's right. As part of anti-crisis, interventionist socio-economic policies to pull the economy out of the economic crisis and economic recession caused in 2020 by the SARS-CoV-2 (Covid-19) coronavirus pandemic, the key issue is limiting the growth of unemployment. As part of these activities, in many countries, from the first wave of the pandemic, the so-called Anti-crisis shields consisting of public financial aid based mainly on non-returnable financial subsidies and subsidies to employee salaries, offered to commercially operating business entities. The condition for receiving subsidies to employee wages, targeted subsidies, refinancing of fixed costs, etc., was to maintain employment even despite the real limitation or suspension of business activity, which was the result of lockdowns imposed on selected service sectors of the economy. In the country where I operate, most companies and enterprises operating in the economy have benefited from this type of financial, non-returnable state aid. The money under the state finance system, which was used under this type of interventionist, financial public aid was created on the basis of the direct purchase by the central bank of new issues of treasury bonds. Thanks to this, the economy in 2021 was quickly moved out of the economic crisis, which in 2020 was mainly caused by the introduced lockdowns. Currently, at the beginning of 2022, the economy is overheated, because despite the rapid increase in interest rates by the central bank, inflation remains high. New social programs replacing the missing development programs additionally increase inflationary pressure. For example, the economic program of the so-called The Polish Order introduced from the beginning of 2022 is criticized by entrepreneurs and the process of its implementation was not well planned and caused chaos and uncertainty in the context of running a business.

Thank you very much,

ave a nice day,

Be safe and healthy,

Best wishes,

Dariusz